Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PETITIONS

Housing, Slough

Mr. Brockway: According to the historic rights of citizens of this country, I desire to present a Petition to the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from residents of the Borough of Slough and adjoining districts.
As this Petition is on similar lines to others which have been presented this week, I do not intend to limit Question Time by reading it in detail. It is signed by 1,500 residents of the Borough of Slough and adjoining districts, including leading citizens, county councillors, aldermen, councillors, and others. It emphasises that the housing problem and the inhuman effects of the Rent Act are not limited to the London area.
In particular, in relation to Slough, it showeth the suffering caused by, first, the decontrol of housing and increasing rents due to the Rent Act; second, the restrictive policy of the Government which has crippled the efforts of the local authorities to meet Slough's pressing needs; third, the high interest charges resulting in increased rents and rates and higher mortgage charges; and, fourth, the Government's failure to impose control on land speculation.

The Petition concludes:

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to deal with this distressing problem.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Housing, London

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I ask the leave of the House to present a Petition signed by many thousands of residents in West and South-West London, including my own constituency, which showeth that the housing position is extremely grave; that thousands of families are living in deplorable, overcrowded conditions; and that the 1957 Rent Act, the restrictive policies of Her Majesty's Government, burdensome interest rates, land speculation, and so on, have all combined to aggravate the grievous plight of vast numbers of decent citizens.

The Petition concludes:

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to deal with this distressing problem.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Trade with Canada

Mr. Eden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking further to stimulate trade between Canada and the United Kingdom.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With the help of the recently reconstituted Western Hemisphere Exports Council we are strengthening our export drive to Canada as to other markets. We welcome the expansion of Canada's exports to this country.

Mr. Eden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Canada is also very anxious to welcome the expansion of British exports to Canada? Will he ensure that no obstacles at this end stand in the way of increasing British participation in the Canadian economy?

Mr. Maudling: I certainly do not know of such obstacles. If there are any, I will try to dispose of them.

Trade Commission Service (Inter-Departmental Committee)

Mr. Turton: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to


receive the Report of the inter-departmental committee on trade commissions presided over by Sir Henry Wilson Smith.

Mr. Maudling: The Report of Sir Henry Wilson Smith's Committee on the future of the Trade Commission Service has been received and is now under consideration.

Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether that Report will be published and made available to Members, bearing in mind that 18 months ago the Estimates Committee expressed its concern over certain aspects of the work of the trade commissioners in Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that the Report has from the start been designed as a confidential report to Ministers, but certainly a full statement will be made to the House.

Ethiopia

Mr. Turton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what help Her Majesty's Government are giving to British firms who wish to assist in the development of Ethiopia.

Mr. Maudling: All the normal facilities, including credit insurance, given by Her Majesty's Government to British firms trading with foreign countries are available in respect of Ethiopia.

Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that he and the Government are well aware of the importance of increasing the participation of British firms in the work of development in Ethiopia, bearing in mind that there is strong competition from certain members of the Soviet bloc?

Mr. Maudling: Yes. This is a very useful market for us, but we must never forget that our capital available for export is limited, and I think we all believe that priority must be given to Commonwealth countries.

Knitwear (Exports to U.S.S.R.)

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Russian importers of British knitwear have expressed dissatisfaction at the quality of the goods delivered; haw these orders were placed; whether the

responsible trade organisations were consulted; what control was exercised over the quality; What investigations he has made into these complaints; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: On reading of these Russian complaints, I made detailed inquiries. The Russian purchasing organisation ordered the goods concerned from suppliers of their awn choosing. I understand that only a very small proportion of the total supplies has been the subject of complaints and that claims have been settled to the complete satisfaction of the Russians.

Mr. Osborne: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of the textile quota in the last trade agreement was grabbed by a former Member of this House, an extreme Left-winger, who knows nothing at all of the trade, who did not go through the trade at all, who parcelled out the orders to third-rate manufacturers and who, as a consequence, has got the British manufacturers a bad name in the export markets? Will my right hon. Friend stress to the Soviet authorities that next time they give orders of this kind, they should go through the proper channels and not to their mere camp followers?

Mr. Maudling: We must leave it to the Russian Government to decide through what channels they buy their goods. I am, however, glad to say that despite these complaints, about which there has been a rather exaggerated amount of publicity, they are still continuing to buy British products.

Congleton

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to attract new industries to Congleton to give employment to men who will be unemployed as a result of the impending closure of the Silver Springs Bleaching and Dyeing Company, Limited.

Mr. Maudling: As my hon. Friend will already know from a letter sent to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, there are a considerable number of new jobs in prospect in Cangleton and the surrounding area which should provide alternative opportunities of employment.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a number of firms in Congleton are working short time and that the closure of this mill will considerably affect the employment of male labour? Bearing in mind that in years gone by Congleton has always suffered considerably because it has no staple industry, and it would not need much more to see it go altogether the wrong way, will my right hon. Friend give the matter his personal attention?

Mr. Maudling: Certainly, I will bear that in mind. I think, however, that the employment prospects in the area are, on the whole, quite encouraging.

Exports

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade what new steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to encourage and facilitate exports.

Mr. Maudling: We are constantly improving the range and quality of the services provided for British exporters. This is a continuous process.

Mr. Wade: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that mere exhortations to exporters and to the general public will not solve the problem? On the positive side, may I put two supplementary questions? Are the Government doing anything to try to achieve international agreement on export credits, since, if each exporting country tries to outbid the other in this field, this will lead to a form of economic warfare which, in the long run, will not help British exporters? Secondly, have the Government any proposals to put forward to the next meeting of G.A.T.T. with a view to achieving an all-round reduction in tariffs and thus increasing international trade?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. I agree that mere exhortation is not enough and I hope that we are doing a good deal more than that. Concerning export credit insurance, we firmly support the Berne Union, an international organisation designed to prevent competitive extension of credit. I have endeavoured to make clear that we go into the session of G.A.T.T. determined to barter reductions in our industrial tariffs in exchange for comparable reductions from other people.

Mr. Snow: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in answer to a question concerning exports put to him at a recent public meeting, he said that if the smaller exporter needed help, he could obtain it through private consultants? Is the President aware that these private consultants are expensive and do not really know the job, and that what is needed is local servicing at local market level?

Mr. Maudling: The answer is that there are a large number of merchant houses, confirming houses, shipping agents, and so on, who, despite what the hon. Member may say, can, in my opinion, do a very good job. I wish that more were known about their facilities.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend keep in the forefront of his mind the possibility of another Export Council, such as the European one, for trade with Japan and the Far East, an area which we have neglected in the past few years?

Mr. Maudling: I do not want to have too many Export Councils. The important thing about an Export Council is that we should get people of top quality on it and the number of such people may be limited. I do not close my mind to other new developments, but we should not have a proliferation of Councils without considering the matter closely.

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the President of the Board of Trade what special Government organisations are now helping firms to increase their exports.

Mr. Maudling: At home, the Department principally concerned is the Board of Trade, including the Export Credits Guarantee Department, which, through London and regional offices, provides a wide range of services designed to help the individual exporter. The Central Office of Information also helps with publicity. Abroad, there are 200 Government posts providing commercial information services to exporters. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the "Guide to British Government Services for Exporters."

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reduction he is making in the number


of forms required to be filled in by exporting firms.

Mr. Maudling: I keep to the minimum the requirements of my Department for security and statistical purposes. Most of the forms which exporters have to fill in are required not by Her Majesty's Government but for commercial purposes or by other Governments.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Has there not been a great reduction in these forms in recent times?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. As regards the Board of Trade, we require forms only for certain particular products. There are Customs forms, but they have been very largely reduced. In fact, I think that the annual total of forms required has been reduced by 400,000.

Motor Industry

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effect which the present recession in the motor industry is having on his plans for expansion in Scotland.

Mr. Maudling: As far as I am aware, the plans of the motor industry for production in Scotland have not been affected by the present recession in demand. I am continuing to encourage industry to go to those parts of Scotland which have high unemployment.

Mr. Rankin: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to create in Scotland through the use of the motor industry employment which the industry is failing to maintain in the Midlands of England? If the industry should fail him, has the President of the Board of Trade any alternative plans to fill the gap? Does he realise that, in the midst of all this, Scottish people are getting depressed because in December unemployment rose by 9,000 to a total of 81,000?

Mr. Maudling: The expansion plans of the motor industry are based on a long-term estimate of demand for motor cars which is not falsified by any short-term fluctuations.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the financial loss to the United Kingdom and the distress caused by the redundancy, short-time working and suspensions of workers in the motor industry

and its associated industries, what recent steps he has taken, and what further steps he proposes to take, to resolve the industrial and economic problems out of which these difficulties have arisen.

Mr. Maudling: The main cause of the difficulties in the motor industry has been the decline of exports of cars, specially to North America. The extension of the maximum repayment period under the hire-purchase regulations from two to three years, announced last week, should give the industry some help in the home market.

Mr. Hughes: With what firms and persons did the President of the Board of Trade discuss the relevant problems? If he has discovered the causes of the redundancy, as his reply indicates, what steps is he taking to remove those causes and what is the expectation and hope of the unemployed workers being taken back into employment or finding work?

Mr. Maudling: My main channel of communication on these matters is the National Advisory Council, which has employers and workers represented on it. We have taken a step recently on hire purchase to improve the home market position. The improvement in exports of British motor cars lies in the hands of employers and workpeople in the motor industry.

Mr. Edelman: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's general reply relevant to Question No. 8? Is it not a new factor that there is a recession in the North Americana continent which may vitiate against the long-term plans of the industry? In these circumstances, is not the President of the Board of Trade aware of the growing anxiety which is felt in the older established areas of the industry, such as Coventry and the Midlands generally, that the original plans for the expansion of the industry are now out of date and will merely dilute the problem instead of serving the interests of Scotland and other depressed areas?

Mr. Maudling: Certainly, there are difficulties in the North American markets. I hope that they will be a challenge to everyone in the industry to improve production, cut prices and be more competitive. Certainly, my impression is that manufacturers as a whole


have no reason to depart from their long-term plans of expansion upon which these Scottish and other projects are based.

Mr. Jay: Has the Minister seen the review of the National Institute of Economic Research this week, which shows that Scotland suffered worse last year from recession than any other part of the United Kingdom? In these circumstances, is it not even more important that these expansions, including expansion of the motor industry, should go forward in Scotland?

Mr. Maudling: Yes. I quite agree.

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware, of the urgent need for more industry in Aberdeen; and what steps he has taken during the last three months, and what steps he plans to take, to bring new industries to Aberdeen.

Mr. Maudling: The Board of Trade continues to take every suitable opportunity to interest industrialists in Aberdeen where unemployment has fallen from 3,885 in December, 1959, to 2,959 last month.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, apart from the figures which he has mentioned, that Answer was very vague? Does he not agree that one of the best ways of attracting industry to Aberdeen is to build advance factories? What steps has he taken in that direction? How many advance factories has he either planned or built in Aberdeen?

Mr. Maudling: We are building a number of advance factories, but not in Aberdeen, because I think that the claims of other areas are stronger. I know that Aberdeen has its problems, but I hope that the hon. and learned Member will agree that we have made some progress in the last year.

Mr. Nabarro: Aberdeen is too far away.

Holidays (Inter-Departmental Committee)

Mr. Mathew: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the inter-Departmental committee set up to

inquire into the problem of extended holidays, bank holidays and other matters affecting the British tourist trade has yet reported; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the inter-Departmental committee has recommended moving the August Bank holiday to the first half of September; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Maudling: I am considering this problem.

Mr. Mathew: Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to galvanise this committee into a sense of urgency so that action can be taken on recommendations before we get into the summer holiday season?

Mr. Maudling: I am quite aware of the urgency of this problem, but it is very difficult and is tied up with school holidays, industrial holidays and so on. No one should be under the illusion that there is a simple answer to it. Anything we can do to spread out the holiday season and avoid these ridiculous peaks will be very valuable.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good thing and in the public interest and would spread the peak demand on transport and accommodation if, instead of having holidays all in the short period between the middle of July and the middle of August, August Bank Holiday were celebrated in the first half of September? There could be no argument against that.

Mr. Maudling: That is precisely the sort of suggestion we ought to consider.

Supply Reserve Depot, Barry

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the proposal to close the supply reserve depot at Barry, what steps he will take to replace the depot by an industrial firm or undertaking.

Mr. Maudling: As the depot is not expected to close until October, 1963, it is too early to say how it should best be disposed of in the national interest

Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this will be the


third such closure of a Government-owned depot in recent years? To that extent, is it not completely at variance with Government policy for bringing industry to the area?

Mr. Maudling: The whole situation of employment in South Wales has radically improved in recent years.

Resale Price Maintenance

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade from what bodies he has now received oral evidence with regard to resale price maintenance in addition to written replies to his questionnaire; whether he proposes to extend the inquiry to Canada, the United States of America and other countries where experience of value in this field is available; and whether he will give an assurance that, before reaching any final decision as to whether it is necessary to amend at this stage the relevant section of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, he will issue a fully summary of the results of the inquiry.

Mr. Maudling: As this inquiry is confidential I do not propose to publish a list of organisations that have given evidence. Information has been obtained from Canada and the United States and inquiries have been made in Sweden. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says about publishing the results of the inquiry.

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has received, in the course of his inquiry into resale price maintenance, regarding the effect of such agreements on the retail price of petrol.

Mr. Maudling: Evidence on this subject has been tendered by a number of suppliers of petroleum products and by distributors.

Mr. Ridley: Can my right hon. Friend say what margin of profit petrol retailers make per gallon of petrol and whether he is satisfied that this is in fact as low as it should be?

Mr. Maudling: I doubt whether there is Ministerial responsibility on that point, but as my hon. Friend knows the

Monopolies Commission has started an inquiry into what is known as the "solus site" system, which is a matter that has given rise to some disquiet. I hope that the inquiry will produce useful information.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the results of his investigations in resale price maintenance.

Mr. Maudling: The inquiry is not yet complete.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is making approaches to consumer organisations to get their opinions, and also whether he is making special investigations into the pricing arrangements of the car industry with particular reference to the sale of accessories? Is he aware that these are too highly priced?

Mr. Maudling: I answered a Question last week saying that we had been in touch with the extremely valuable and important consumer organisations. So far as motor cars are concerned, our inquiry covers all forms of price maintenance.

New Factories and Extensions, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs have been created in Wales by the completion of new factories and extensions during each of the last three years; how many have been created since the passing of the Local Employment Act; and how many new jobs are in prospect in Wales during 1961.

Mr. Maudling: New factories and extensions known to be completed in 1958, 1959 and 1960 had employment estimated by the firms concerned of 2,336, 1,807 and 2,610 respectively. Comparable figures for the period since the passing of the Local Employment Act are not yet available. It is estimated that about 15,000 persons will be employed by schemes now known to be under construction. Some of these will be completed in 1961.

Mr. Gower: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that very encouraging reply?

Rugeley, Lichfield and Tamworth

Mr. Snow: asked the President of the Board of Trade from information available to him through his regional office, how many manufacturers employing less than 100 workers and producing all categories of goods are located within the Urban District Council of Rugeley, the Rural District Council of Lichfield, the City of Lichfield and the Borough of Tamworth, respectively; and how many are exporting their manufactures.

Mr. Maudling: I regret the information asked for is not available.

Mr. Snow: While that admission of ignorance was not unexpected, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that he grossly underestimates the export potential of small firms? Is he aware that if he would listen to business men who go into the world's markets he would begin to understand that the old structure of London confirming houses and overseas agencies is grossly irrelevant to present-day requirements?

Mr. Maudling: I am always delighted to listen to people who know what they are talking about in these matters. I am sorry that we do not have this information, but I do not believe in collecting information for the sake of collecting information.

British Trade Fair, Moscow

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken, in order to expand United Kingdom exports and increase Anglo-Soviet trade, by way of assistance to the British Trade Exhibition in Moscow; and whether he will arrange for a British week, or weeks, of activities while the exhibition is being held.

Mr. Maudling: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on 26th January.
As regards the second part of the Question, while I should be anxious to support any suggestion that would increase the commercial value of the Trade Fair, I do not believe that the

holding of a British Week in Moscow, in so far as this would be practicable, would yield any substantial results.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it not the case that, as at present planned, this exhibition looks like being the biggest foreign trade exhibition ever held in the Soviet Union? In that case, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is his duty simultaneously to stimulate interest in Britain as a whole and in trade in particular while the exhibition is being held?

Mr. Maudling: We thought a good deal about this matter, but we concluded that what was important was to concentrate on trade, and in all the efforts we are making we are concentrating at this fair on increasing the amount sold by Britain to Russia. We will consider any suggestion, but I do not think that that made by the hon. Member would contribute to that end.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for a large pottery exhibit in the British Trade Exhibition in Moscow, showing pottery being decorated and an exhibition of reinforced plastics and pattern-making being carried out for all requirements in the industry, the patterns being made of glass fibre reinforced plastics.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. My Department's exhibit at the British Trade Fair in Moscow will be a general display of recent British scientific and technical achievement. Its construction has already begun and it is not now possible to change its form.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I understand and accept that reply, but will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that his Department gets the co-operation of the pottery industry, so that we can have the best pottery exhibits in the exhibition, justifying the high skill and quality which goes into our pottery products? As so much interest has been created by pottery being decorated by girls at these exhibitions, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that similar arrangements would have a similar effect in Russia?

Mr. Maudling: There is a difficulty. I understand that the pottery manufacturers have decided not to participate


because the quota which the Russians give is only £10,000 and it is thus hardly worth while putting on an expensive exhibit in Moscow. However, we shall have further negotiations about quotas for consumer goods, and I will bear the position of the pottery industry very much in mind.

Sir B. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade what advice or financial assistance is being given by Her Majesty's Government, in view of the urgency of obtaining new markets for United Kingdom export trade, to the organisers of the British Trade Fair to be held in Moscow in May.

Mr. Maudling: The advice of the Government Departments concerned and of Her Majesty's Embassy in Moscow has been available at all times to the organisers on the many matters on which they have consulted us. There has never been any question of their receiving financial assistance from public funds.

Sir B. Janner: In view of the real importance of this exhibition, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that financial aid should not be given to promote the exhibition in such a way as to obtain the best advantages that we can from it?

Mr. Maudling: They asked for no help. It is a very ambitious fair and I am glad to say that they have already sold all the space available.

Crofting Counties

Mr. Willis: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs were provided in the seven crofting counties in 1960.

Mr. Maudling: About 400.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that figure is very disappointing and unsatisfactory? Is he aware that legislation now before the House will increase the need for employment in this area still further? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether the Government can take much more positive action to provide jobs in this difficult area?

Mr. Maudling: My figures do not include jobs created in agriculture and forestry. The hon. Member must recognise the facts of life and appreciate that

to get industry into the crofting counties is extremely difficult.

Mr. Ross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the number of jobs in agriculture and forestry is diminishing and that the provision of only 400 new jobs is nothing compared with the number of people who have been forced to leave the crofting counties in the last few years?

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman must have some regard to the practical difficulties of setting up industry in these remote places.

Film Studios, Walton-on-Thames

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade on what date he received notice of the proposed closure of the Walton-on-Thames film studios and an appeal for Government assistance to keep it going; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Maudling: On 18th January Mrs. Hannah Fisher, one of the principal shareholders in Walton Studios Ltd., informed me that she would welcome the opportunity to keep Walton as a going concern provided that the offer compared favourably with what had already been received. I do not consider Government financial assistance appropriate in a matter of this kind.

Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay attention to the fact that, if film studios continue to close at this rate, there will be no production potential left in the British film industry? As he is statutorily responsible for maintaining a film industry in this country, will not he take some action to ensure that this, one of our original film studios, is kept open for the industry?

Mr. Maudling: I do not agree. If there were a shortage of space for film making the price would go up and people would pay more to get the space.

Film Studios (Closures)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of British film studios which have been closed in the last 10 years; and if he will give an estimate of the extent to which, in terms of studio space, these closures have reduced the film industry's production capacity.

Mr. Maudling: There have been additions to studio capacity as well as closures during the period concerned. The net effect has been to reduce floor space available for cinematograph film making by about one-third. I am circulating details of closures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: Does not this reveal the fact that the capacity, so far as studio space is concerned, to expand the British film industry has been enormously reduced over this period of time? In view of the fact that there is still a situation where 70 per cent. of the films shown in the country are of foreign manufacture, should not the President of the Board of Trade take some action to ensure that no further studio space is lost to the industry?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that the amount of studio space determines the amount of film production. The intensity of its use is one thing. In fact, the number of long British films registered last year was substantially greater than the number registered 10 years ago.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the President of the Board of Trade say whether the National Film Finance Corporation will be permitted by him, and has power, to intervene to keep studios in existence where it feels they may be needed to keep up production? Secondly, in view of the fact that it is becoming nonsense to talk about film production for the cinemas without talking about film production for television, will he say whether he keeps in close touch both with the Postmaster-General and with the Independent Television Authority about the joint arrangements for production between the film industry and the television companies?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that we must keep in touch with television and cinema interests which are getting more and more involved. On the first point, the N.F.F.C. has no statutory power to advance money for the purchase of studios, but if British Lion wanted to make, an approach, no doubt it could consider that with the N.F.F.C.

Following is the information:

The following studios of more than 5,000 square ft. have ceased to be avail-

able for cinematograph film production since 1st January, 1951:

Denham, Ealing, Gate, Isleworth, Manchester, National, Riverside, Southall, Teddington, Walton, Wembley.

Some of these studios are now used for television purposes. During the 10 years one new studio for cinematograph film making has opened and five others have been extended.

Imports from the United States of America

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he will take to control inessential imports from the United States of America in order to protect United Kingdom gold and dollar reserves.

Mr. Maudling: I do not consider that the restriction of imports would strengthen either our economy or our currency.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the quite serious trade gap, does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is desirable and necessary that a growing number of one-armed bandits and fruit machines costing £300 to £400 each should be imported from America? Is he going to sit idly by and allow this undesirable trade trend to go on without any kind of control?

Mr. Maudling: At a time when we are trying hard to increase the export of inessentials to America, I do not propose to put controls on their sales here.

European Economic Commission (Tariff Adjustments)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the general effect on British trade of the latest tariff adjustments by the European Economic Corn-mission; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: It is not possible as yet to make a statistical assessment of the effect of these changes.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that various trade associations are already doing that? Surely he ought not to be behind them? Surely he should, without delay, be able to give some useful information to the House and to manufacturers generally so that they can formulate their plans?

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman asked for an assessment of the general effect on British trade. I think he will realise that there is no individual firm or even association which can do that. To make a general forecast is exceedingly difficult in view of the extremely complex nature of the complex tariff structure involved.

Trade with Formosa

Mr. Teeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade why imports to the United Kingdom from Formosa have increased during the past 12 months whereas exports from the United Kingdom to Formosa have decreased; and what steps he proposes to take to increase exports to that island.

Mr. Maudling: Imports from Formosa are admitted freely.
Exports to Formosa have not decreased but increased from £1·1 million in 1959 to £1·3 million in 1960. The ordinary facilities of my Department are available to exporters to Formosa.

Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are a large number of people in this country who would like to share in the increasing exports to Formosa from Hong Kong, Australia and other parts of the Commonwealth? Will he consider whether anything more can be done to help in this matter?

Mr. Maudling: I hope that we shall increase our sales there. All the facilities of my Department are available to help in that process.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position about the Formosan trade mission? Is it in this country now, or is it coming? Has the Board of Trade agreed to meet it? Is he aware that the statements circulating about official recognition of this trade mission are having a very serious effect on our trade with China?

Mr. Maudling: I have seen reports, but I have received no information about any purported official mission, but, of course, that would be governed by political relations between ourselves and the Formosan people.

Cairnryan Port

Mr. Brewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of

the imminent resale of Cairnryan Port his Department will purchase the port and installations and lease it to some suitable industrial undertaking.

Mr. Maudling: I am informed that the port is not for sale.

Street Lighting (Sodium Discharge Lamps)

Mr. Grey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the short supply of 140 sodium discharge lamps for street lighting resulting from concentration of the lamp manufacturing industry; and if he will refer this industry to the Monopolies Commission for their consideration.

Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Member has evidence that the conditions to which the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, 1948, applies prevail in respect of such lamps, I shall be glad to take it into account when I am considering possible new references to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Hetton Urban District Council is finding it extremely difficult to obtain sodium discharge lamps? I am informed that other local authorities are having similar difficulties. The position is aggravated by the fact that the ones that have been supplied are not living up to their guaranteed lives. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it ridiculous for the Ministry of Transport to issue directions to all local authorities to provide better street lighting when this kind of thing takes place? Will he consider investigating the matter?

Mr. Maudling: I will investigate any evidence the hon. Gentleman is kind enough to send me.

Motor Manufacturing Industry (National Advisory Council)

Mr. Woodhouse: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many times the National Advisory Council for the Motor Manufacturing Industry have met since the beginning of October, 1960; and on how many of those occasions a Minister was present.

Mr. Maudling: Twice. On one of these occasions I was present.

Mr. Woodhouse: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Will he bear in mind the widespread feeling in the industry that this Council, excellent though its composition is, would be more effective and dynamic if it had a Minister as its chairman and was not conducted on the Government side merely at the official level?

Mr. Maudling: That is the opposite of the normal criticism. It is usually suggested that Ministers are not dynamic in their chairmanship of these bodies. The Council can meet as often as the members want it to. I think that the present arrangements are probably the best, but I will be happy to consider any alternatives that members of the Council put forward.

Mr. Edelman: Will the Minister consider publishing reports of the proceedings of this Council? There is great interest in this matter, and the industry would like to know what sort of advice has been tendered to him and his reaction to it.

Mr. Maudling: As the industry is represented both by employers and workpeople on the Council, I think that it should look to the representatives for information. Publication of the reports of meetings may detract from the value and freedom of the discussions.

Milk Carton Machine Manufacturers

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries his Department has made into the restrictive practices of milk carton machine manufacturers which are delaying the introduction of new distributive methods.

Mr. Maudling: The Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements will consider any information tending to show the existence of a restrictive trading agreement registrable under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the President of the Board of Trade draw to the attention of the Registrar the activities of carton manufacturers, who are demanding an excessive commission and so restricting the development of this new technique?

Mr. Maudling: I shall be very glad to receive from the hon. Member and forward to the Registrar any information he cares to let me have.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Sweets

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many gallons of sweets were withdrawn from bond in the nine months ended on 31st December; and how many gallons of sweets were in bond at that or some other convenient date compared with the same date in 1959.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I regret that information in respect of December, 1960 is not yet available. I am, however, circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of figures showing the position as at 30th November, 1960.

Following are the figures:


SWEETS (BRITISH WINES)



Gallons


Quantity withdrawn from bonded warehouses for home use during the eight months from 1st April, 1960, to 30th November, 1960
30


Quantity in bonded warehouses:



(i) on 30th November, 1960
3,556


(ii) on 30th November, 1959
2,377


Quantity sent out for home use from licensed wineries during the eight months from 1st April, 1960, to 30th November, 1960
5,904,048


Quantity in stock at wineries on date of taking stock*:—



(i) between 1st June, 1960 and 30th November, 1960
5,060,366


(ii) between 1st June, 1959 and 30th November, 1959
5,524,090


*Stock in wineries is taken every six months, but not on the same date at all wineries.

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue derived from the excise duties on sweets in the nine months ended on 31st December, 1960; and of that total what was attributable under the Fourth Schedule of the Finance Act, 1958, as amended, to still British wines, to sparkling British wines and to dutiable cider and perry.

Mr. Barber: I regret that figures for December, 1960, are not yet available. The total revenue derived from the excise duties on sweets in the eight months


ended on 30th November, 1960, was £2,744,179. Of this total, £2,683,058 was attributable to still British wines and £61,121 to sparkling British wines. Separate figures for cider and perry, strengthened to 15 degrees of proof or more, are not available.

Sir R. Glyn: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. Will he bear in mind that the present duty on cider and perry falls entirely on that part of the industry which uses the greatest proportion of British-grown fruit?

Mr. Barber: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a matter for the Budget, but we will bear in mind what he says.

Sterling Area (Cameroun Republic)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will admit to the sterling area the Cameroun Republic or any territory joining that Republic.

Mr. Barber: The Cameroun Republic is a member of the French franc monetary area. Her Majesty's Government are not aware that it has any intention of applying for membership of the sterling area.
As regards a territory joining the Cameroun Republic, I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the Northern and Southern Cameroons. If so, we must await the outcome of the plebiscite on 11th February.

Mr. Tilney: Considering that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies stated in this House this week that, whatever the result of the plebiscite, £3 million of the British taxpayers' money, through the Colonial Development Corporation, would be spent in that country even though it may opt to be a foreign State, does not my hon. Friend think that steps should be taken to show that it does not pay to turn on one's Commonwealth friends, such as Nigeria, and also that we prefer to support the sterling area rather than the franc zone?

Mr. Barber: I think that these are matters for the political parties concerned, but I can tell my hon. Friend that if the Cameroons elect to join the Federation of Nigeria they will certainly remain within the sterling area.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will not the Minister bear in mind that if we show that we give aid without strings to the people of the Cameroons it will do our reputation nothing but good?

Mr. Barber: That is outside the ambit of the Question.

Morecambe Shrimp Sellers Limited

Mr. de Ferranti: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds the application from Morecambe Shrimp Sellers Ltd. for £813 towards the cost and installation of a shrimp peeling machine, as recommended by the Development Commission, was rejected.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Because my right hon. and learned Friend is not satisfied that the Development Fund is the proper source for assistance of this kind.

Mr. de Ferranti: In view of the fact that support continues to be given to the white fish industry, is my hon. Friend aware that this decision will be regarded as both parsimonious and illogical? Will he be prepared to show greatness by changing his mind?

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir, certainly not. It is not usual to make advances from the Development Fund when an alternative source of finance exists. I do not say that the White Fish Authority would make a grant in this case, but it is empowered to do so and is perfectly qualified to reach a decision on the merits of the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Kennedy at his forthcoming meeting that there should be full co-operation, on a fifty-fifty basis, financially and otherwise, between Great Britain and the United States of America over any communications satellite system initiated by the United States of America, which involved communications between Great Britain and the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have nothing to add at


present to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member on 31st January.

Mr. Wyatt: How can we persuade the Prime Minister to take seriously this matter which is so vital to the future of a large part of British industry? Does not he realise that two American companies have already proposed a scheme of federal communications for a satellite system which would make about £1,000 million profit a year? As this will go over British territory, will not we be the losers if we do not have a share? May not we lose our pre-eminent place in international communications if the Government do not act soon?

The Prime Minister: There are two parts to the Question. The first concerns my possible visit to the United States, to which I can only repeat that I cannot yet make a statement. The other refers to a particular question which the hon. Member wishes me to take up. We are studying this matter closely with our American friends. A United Kingdom team visited the United States in October, and we expect the American team to visit us in the middle of this month for an exchange of views on the technical matters concerned.

Mr. Farey-Jones: In view of the urgent necessity for a co-ordinated space satellite programme within the Commonwealth, will my right hon. Friend agree to put this subject high on the agenda of the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers?

The Prime Minister: I will bear that point in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (DISCUSSIONS, 1956)

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now publish a full account of the official conversations which took place in April, 1956, between Sir Anthony Eden, Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Bulganin concerning the situation in the Middle East.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. A statement on the discussions, agreed by Sir Anthony Eden and Mr. Bulganin, was published as a White Paper in April, 1956.

Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Khrushchev has recently given an account of these conversations which reflects on the honour as well as the wisdom of Her Majesty's present advisers, and which deserves correction if it is wrong? In particular, can the Prime Minister say whether there is any truth in Mr. Khrushchev's odious suggestion that during the Suez operation he was approached by Western representatives, who offered Russia a free hand in Hungary in return for a free hand in the Suez?

The Prime Minister: It would be a very great error for me to publish anything other than what was agreed between the two principals. We should keep to our side of the bargain, at any rate. As for all these statements, as the hon. Member knows, they have no foundation.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister if he will propose to the forthcoming Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers the adoption of a charter of democratic rights and personal freedoms which would become the political basis of the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on 7th April, 1960, the strength of our Commonwealth association is in great part due to the absence of this type of formal, institutional machinery.

Mr. Brockway: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in present world conditions it is desirable that an objective in principle should be given to the Commonwealth? Does not he further agree that it cannot just exist on past sentimental associations or economic interests, when they are challenged by new loyalties and new economic pressures? Would not the United Kingdom be able to contribute a great deal to this transitional world if it stood for democratic rights irrespective of race, and for human liberties?

The Prime Minister: Some quite difficult questions will be arising in the near future. I think that we are agreed on the purpose we have in mind. What we have to study is the best way to make that purpose effective.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to attend the resumed meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in March.

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will attend the resumed session of the United Nations Assembly on Disarmament in March.

The Prime Minister: As hon. Members will be aware, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers are to meet during the first half of March. I am therefore already heavily committed in the first part of March, and have no present plans for going to the General Assembly.

Mr. Mayhew: Does not the Prime Minister agree that high-level meetings at the United Nations in March could provide an opportunity for final agreement in the nuclear test convention? Does not he further agree that the parties are now very close together on this? Will he bear in mind that the danger of the Russians evading arms regulations which might not be completely watertight has to be offset against the danger of continuing the arms race without restrictions?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but the hon. Member will realise that with the new American Administration there will have to be some delay before we can again take up the detailed discussions in Geneva, and we must bear in mind the timing of that, because the most important thing is that the discussions should be fruitful and effective.

Mr. Healey: But if, as now seems likely, Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Kennedy are likely to meet and to discuss these matters at the beginning of March, is not there a very strong case for the Prime Minister going to the United States, if necessary before the opening of the United Nations Assembly, in order to discuss these matters too? Would it not be unfortunate if a situation arose in which it was for Mr. Khrushchev to introduce the British Prime Minister to the new President of the United States?

The Prime Minister: With regard to nuclear tests, it is clear that there is no

hope of having the conference brought to a conclusion until we are able to get going the adjourned discussions at Geneva. As I said, I think that there is a general agreement between the parties that the best hope is to allow the new American Administration to study the whole question and see what proposals they may make or agree to which would bring us to final agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the proposed merger of Odhams Press Limited with Thomson Newspapers, he will now advise the setting up of a Royal Commission to inquire into the Press, with particular reference to the growth of monopolistic control.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Thomson-Odhams merger he will now agree to an inquiry into the Press in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 2nd December, 1960.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a committee to inquire into the Press in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 2nd December, 1960, in view of the new situation created by the Thomson-Odhams merger.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the recent further concentration of control of the Press in the hands of fewer people, whether he will now implement the Resolution of the House of 2nd December last on this matter.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now advise the setting-tip of a Royal Commission to inquire into the Press, with particular reference to the growth of monopolistic control over national newspapers and magazines, in view of recent events in the newspaper industry.

The Prime Minister: I am still considering whether an inquiry would be useful and, if so, what should be its scope and character.

Mr. Mayhew: Has the Prime Minister seen that Odhams Press has today stated


that it would like an inquiry as a matter of urgency and also that the other parties have said that they would welcome an inquiry? May I, therefore, ask him what assurances he has had that the Mirror group would not suppress the Daily Herald, other than the private assurances of a single individual who is fallible and mortal?

The Prime Minister: All those matters which have just come to my notice are, of course, relevant factors in reaching a decision as to what should be the scope and character of an inquiry, if any.

Mr. Donnelly: In view of the fact that both Mr. King and Odhams Press have said they would welcome an inquiry, what is the Prime Minister waiting for?

The Prime Minister: I saw the statement of Odhams. I have not seen the other it must have come out just as I came into the House. As I say, these are factors which ought to be considered in the character of an inquiry as to its scope, if it takes place, and particular transactions are, of course, matters for the directors and shareholders concerned.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is great concern in the country at the declining number of daily newspapers and the possible further acceleration of that decline before very long, and that in the circumstances the influence of the provincial Press becomes more important? It, those circumstances, will he resist the pressure from his hon. Friends for the establishment of local commercial radio stations which would have the effect of weakening the provincial Press at this time?

The Prime Minister: I think that a rather different question, but if there were a large-scale inquiry no doubt that might be considered in it.

Mr. C. Osborne: If an inquiry is to be held, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the statement made in last Sunday's Observer editorial, that far more of the smaller newspapers could continue in existence if the restrictive practices that obtain in the printing unions were to be modified?

The Prime Minister: That, of course, is also important. The whole economics

of newspaper finance and the printing industry are, of course, very relevant.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this question of an inquiry he seems to be holding back behind everybody else? The chairman of the Daily Mirror expressed his welcome for the idea of an inquiry some days ago, both in a statement and on television. Odhams has now expressed its welcome for the idea of an inquiry as a matter of urgency. The custodians of the public interest in this are the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. Would he, therefore, say why he still holds back when all the interested parties are keen? Is he aware that if he holds back long enough he will be able to say, "There is now no point in it because the damage has been done"?

The Prime Minister: All those considerations have, of course, occurred to me. They relate to quite separate questions. One is whether the Government have a right—which I am certain they have not—but whether they will have a legal right to interfere with any particular transaction under the law as between shareholders or employee interests. The other question is whether this transaction is symptomatic of a situation which would require, as I tried to say on Tuesday, a more general review of all the underlying points which have led to this kind of development. It is to that matter that I am giving my attention and I hope to make an early statement.

Mr. G. Brown: Can the Prime Minister give some idea of what he thinks "early" in this affair will be?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, neither very long delayed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—nor too wantonly hurried on. But I should have said some time during the next Parliamentary week.

Mr. Wyatt: Has the Prime Minister made any request to the parties concerned either to hold up the proceedings for a merger permanently or pending an inquiry? Would he ask the Pilkington Committee to consider also whether, as a matter of urgency, no national newspapers ought to be allowed to have any holding in television stations? Does he realise that it is the scandalous way in


which the I.T.A. dished out licences which has given huge profits to newspaper owners and thus enabled them to go round buying other newspapers?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "No". With regard to the second part, as I said on Tuesday, we are taking steps to bring this special point to the attention of the Pilkington Committee and ask it to deal with it.

Mr. Grimond: Arising out of the Prime Minister's last answer but one, may we take it that he is considering an inquiry not ally into the future of the industry but into the particular deal concerning Odhams? If that is the case and it is included, would not it be reasonable to ask the participants in the deal at least to hold up until the Prime Minister has announced his decision?

The Prime Minister: No; Sir, that is just the point. I am not at all convinced that the Government have a right or duty to intervene in a particular transaction. What I think they may have a right and duty to do is to say whether certain tendencies should now be considered as a whole. It will then be for those who enter into those transactions, should such an inquiry take place, to decide what would be the correct and wise step to take.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in the Press that, if the Daily Herald is to be taken over, the members of the General Committee of the T.U.C. would prefer it to be taken over by Mr. Thomson rather than by the Daily Mirror group? Is it not pleasant that they should seek the umbrella of a Conservative proprietor, and would not the difficulties of the Daily Herald be solved if it were turned into a popular Conservative paper?

The Prime Minister: It was only as I was coming into the Chamber that I saw on the tape machine the further Odhams statement. I did see that it referred only to the periodical problem.

Mr. Wilkins: May I remind the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS "No."]—this is no laughing matter for the printing operatives—may I ask whether he will bear in mind, in trying to come to a conclusion as to whether there should be an

inquiry or not, that it is not merely Odhams which is concerned that there should be an immediate inquiry, but all the members of the Printing and Kindred Trades Federation, which he knows something about? They also are very anxious about the outcome of this merger.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, that is just the point, that it is the economic, industrial and general situation in this industry which may cause sufficient reason for anxiety that it should be properly inquired into. I am very much concerned about certain tendencies which may lead to making these things so expensive to produce that they will be forced out, with consequent effects upon the lives and employment of the men in the printing industry, and whether, perhaps, there are not things which the industry itself could do enormously to increase its productive efficiency.

Mr. G. Brown: So that there is no misunderstanding about the Odhams statement about an inquiry, will the Prime Minister look again at it—I have a copy of it with me—when he will see that it specifically refers to the merger in the newspaper and magazine fields and asks for an inquiry to cover the lot?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will read on, it says that the periodicals give cause for anxiety because there would be 300 of them under one hand, and therefore the likelihood of a closing would be in the periodical field.

Mr. Brown: No, that is not so.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS FORCE, CONGO (NATIONAL CONTINGENTS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the withdrawal of national contingents supporting the operation of the United Nations in the ex-Belgian Congo, if he will personally make representations to the heads of governments whose countries are member-states of the United Nations, to agree to the continuation of their contingents and to give renewed support to efforts aimed at preventing civil war and economic chaos in that area.

The Prime Minister: I understand that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has already addressed appeals in the sense of the hon. Member's Question to those Governments who are withdrawing their national contingents from the Congo force. I do not think it would be right for me to address separate appeals to these Governments, but Her Majesty's Government entirely endorse Mr. Hammarskjoeld's efforts in this direction, and our views about this are known.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the tragedy that would attend the withdrawal of contingents from this part of Africa, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a personal appeal on his part might strengthen the effort of the Secretary-General?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I sympathise entirely with the purpose the hon. Member has in mind, but Mr. Hammarskjoeld is charged by the United Nations with this task. I think we have to be careful to give him support in the constitutional manner.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Does not the Prime Minister think that the experience of the United Nations in the Congo shows that there should be a permanent force specially recruited by the United Nations which would not be subject to the whims of dictators out for their own ends?

The Prime Minister: That, of course, is a very important consideration, but the hon. and learned Member will not have forgotten that a suggestion of this kind was included by Her Majesty's Government in their disarmament proposals.

Mrs. Castle: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the increasing dangers in the present situation arises from the intervention of foreign forces and Governments with the help of arms and men put into the Congo not under the control of the United Nations? Could he say what steps the United Kingdom delegate at the United Nations is taking to get this stopped?

The Prime Minister: The United Nations resolution to which we gave our support is quite clear on this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. G. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for the next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY AND TUESDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY—A debate will take place on an Opposition Motion relating to the Economic Situation.

At the end of business on Tuesday we propose to take the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY—A debate on the Opposition Motion of censure relating to the National Health Service.

Afterwards, we shall ask the House to take the Committee stage of the Ways and Means Resolution relating to the National Health Service contributions.

THURSDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill; and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Report stage of the Ways and Means Resolution, when the National Health Service contributions Bill will be brought in.

Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

FRIDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 13TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Crown Estate Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about seven o'clock.

Afterwards, Committee and remaining stages of the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill.

Mr. Brown: I understand that, subsequently, a Bill will be necessary to deal with the National Health Service contribution about which a Ways and Means Resolution is to be debated on Wednesday. May I have an assurance that all stages of that Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why


he has put the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill down to follow the end of Tuesday's debate when the first Order of the Day is likely to take the whole of the time? I know that the Consolidated Fund Bill is exempt from the Standing Order, but is not that debate an occasion on which private Members may raise all kinds of grievances with the Government for which they have no other opportunity? Does he not know that there are a great many such questions outstanding, some of which he has been evading and avoiding dealing with for many months? Would it not be better to have the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on a day and at a time when it would not defeat the rights of hon. Members to raise questions with him?

Mr. Butler: I think it important that the House should apprehend that this is rather different from the ordinary March Consolidated Fund Bill and the July Appropriation Bill. This particular Consolidated Fund Bill is brought in for the specific purpose of giving authority for the issue of moneys relating to recommendations of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration. There were Supplementary Estimates for this purpose which have already been taken in Committee.
While the hon. Member, with his knowledge of the House, is not incorrect in referring to it as a Consolidated Fund Bill, it is not the ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill, but a special one. Therefore, I maintain that special reasons make it legitimate to put it at the place we have chosen to put it.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the profound public anxiety concerning the increase in crimes of violence and murder? Having regard to the fact that there has been no opportunity, on a Government Motion or otherwise, to debate in this House the effects of the 1957 Homicide Act, and that widely differing opinions are held in the House on these issues, would he not consider allotting time on an early day, on a Government Motion, for this matter to be debated?

Mr. Butler: I do not underestimate the grave anxiety, particularly in the light of recent statistics of murder, although I think that they must be kept

in perspective in relation to the whole situation. I am aware that there are varying views on the 1957 Homicide Act which have been put to me from various quarters of the House, and, of course, I am available to hon. Members who wish to express their anxieties or views to me. I have not previously had across the Floor of the House an actual request for time to debate this subject. I think that the best thing I can say to my hon. Friend and to the House is that we shall give this matter consideration.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very grateful.

Mr. Hamilton: With reference to Wednesday's business, would the Leader of the House consider the possibility of giving us a separate day for debating the Scottish aspect of the Health Service charges, in view of the fact that there is more unemployment in Scotland and, generally, lower wages—particularly among the lower-paid workers—and that, therefore, the hardship will be proportionately greater than in England? If he cannot arrange for that on the Floor of the House, will he make representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland so that we might use the extra day which is now available to the Scottish Grand Committee for debating this question?

Mr. Butler: As to debate on the Floor of the House, I am well satisfied that this subject is to be aired on a considerable number of occasions during the next week or two, partly in view of the answer I gave to the right hon. Member. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member can take it that the Secretary of State for Scotland will appear to answer questions on more than one occasion when they are put by Scottish hon. Members. The point about the Scottish Grand Committee is one which I must discuss with my right hon. Friend.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of the desirability of informing the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the views of hon. Members in advance of the framing of the Budget, will my right hon. Friend consult with the Opposition with a view to the Opposition's Motion on Monday being so framed as not to exclude the structure of taxation?

Mr. Butler: The first point to notice is that that debate will not be on the Adjournment. Therefore—subject to


what you say, Mr. Speaker—it should be possible to raise a great variety of subjects and not to exclude such matters as my noble Friend desires to raise; but it is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one reason why we did not want that debate to be on the Adjournment was that we wanted to discuss the possibility of quite wide-ranging legislation, including taxation, because many hon. Members on this side of the House will want to raise questions on that point which are substantially different from those to be raised by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)?

Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend set aside an early day for a debate on the critical situation in the shipbuilding industry? If that is not possible, will he ask the Minister of Transport—who, I see, has just come into the House, and who continually protests that he is not overburdened with transport responsibilities—whether he will speak in the debate on the economic situation either on Monday or Tuesday? Then, many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in shipping and shipbuilding industries would have an opportunity of raising the many important grievances of their constituents and getting answers to the questions they raised.

Mr. Butler: I cannot but say that this subject would be in order in discussing the economic situation. Whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be replying is another matter. I should like to consider further the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster).

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Leader of the House take into account the fact that, obviously, hon. Members on both sides will want to discuss the serious position in the shipbuilding industry—and the backward character of certain sections of that industry?
In regard to the question of the Minister put up to reply, does the Leader of the House recognise that we regard this as a really serious debate and that we could no: possibly contemplate the suggestion which has been made?

Miss Herbison: Last Thursday, I asked the Leader of the House whether he would find time for a debate on the Report of the Guest Committee. He brushed my request aside by saying that he would have discussions about this being debated in the Scottish Grand Committee. Is he aware that this is an important Report, which has caused great interest in Scotland? I would have thought that the Government would want to get the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House and their reactions to the recommendations. Is he aware, also, that, if we have a debate of two and a half hours, it will be quite impossible to get those views? Indeed, it would perhaps be better to have no debate at all than to have one of two and a half hours. Will he, therefore, arrange for time to be given to discuss the Report on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Butler: We have such a press of business that I can give no undertaking, but that does not mean that I do not appreciate the value of the Report

Mr. C. Osborne: As a great number of hon. Members on both sides will wish to take part in the debate on the economic situation on Monday and Tuesday, will my right hon. Friend make an appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, for a self-denying ordinance that back benchers should not speak for more than ten minutes so that we can all have a chance?

Mr. Butler: I hope that other hon. Members will follow the lead suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last Bill he mentioned—the Crown Estate Bill—is not yet available? Will he arrange for it to be printed before asking us to read it?

Mr. Butler: Yes. That Bill will be immediately available.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the National Health Service (Scotland) Act is a separate Act from the English Act and went through the House separately? Does he also realise that some of the changes proposed affect the Scottish Act differently from the way they affect the


English Act? A separate debate is, therefore, necessary. The desire of Scottish Members cannot properly be met by a Minister who intervenes from time to time during the debate, or at a part of the debate, to answer points which have been put. It is not satisfactory. We want a separate debate.

Mr. Butler: I will discuss the Scottish aspects of the Bill with my right hon. Friend, but, meanwhile, we had better see what progress we make.

Mr. Thorpe: I think that the Leader of the House was in the Chamber last Monday when the Private Notice Question of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was dealt with. Will he not agree that there was intense feeling on the issue of the coloured ratings being landed from H.M.S. "Victorious" en route for South Africa? Is he aware that a Motion has now been tabled in the names of my hon. Friend the Member far Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and others?
So far, Her Majesty's Opposition have not given tangible evidence of their equally intense feeling by a single Labour Member of Parliament adding his name to the Motion. Notwithstanding that large-scale and massive oversight, which, no doubt, will be rectified, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not a party political matter, but one which has a very real principle behind it? Will he try to provide time for this important matter to be debated?
[That this House deplores the decision of the Board of the Admiralty to disembark six coloured members of Her Majesty's Royal Navy from H.M.S. "Victorious" at Gibraltar, since such action appears to condone South Africa's racial policies and is wholly inconsistent with the ideals of the Commonwealth and with any system of joint Commonwealth defence.]

Mr. Butler: I do not see any chance of debating the Motion in the immediate future. Meanwhile, I will wait and see what other Members follow the hon. Member's advice.

Mrs. Butler: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to find time for a debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater

London before the Minister reaches a decision on its iconoclastic recommendations?

Mr. Butler: This raises a very large issue, and we are at a rather early stage before the Minister makes up his mind. In view of the many interests involved in the neighbourhood of London and in London, it is certainly a matter which will have to be fully aired before it is finally decided.

Mr. Lipton: May we take it that the Leader of the House does not intend to find time for discussion of the Motion signed by 100 of his hon. Friends about drugs for private patients being obtained under the National Health Service? Is it not rather deplorable that the first opportunity many of his hon. Friends will have of ventilating the matter will be on the Motion of censure to be moved next Wednesday?
[That this House is of the opinion that private patients should be enabled to obtain their medicines and drugs on the same terms and conditions as National Health Service patients; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce the necessary legislation without further delay.]

Mr. Butler: We must leave my hon. Friends to avail themselves of what opportunities they can in this matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I revert to the question asked by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)? Is it the Government's intention to provide time to discuss the working of the Homicide Act, 1957? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while there obviously are fundamentally different points of view on this, there is complete unanimity—or virtually complete unanimity—that it is irrational, unjust and so uncertain in its working as to bring the whole law into contempt? Will he give the House of Commons an opportunity of debating the matter?

Mr. Butler: I will give the same answer to the hon. Gentleman as I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). This matter has been raised across the Floor of the House. It will now receive consideration.

Mr. Brockway: Responding to the non-party spirit alluded to by the


hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), as discontent was expressed on both sides of the House about what happened on H.M.S. "Victorious", will the Government give us an opportunity to discuss the Motion relating to this subject? I ask this question particularly, because it was stated in answer to Questions that this has been a long-term practice of the Navy, but in a Written Answer to me yesterday the Civil Lord admitted that the instructions were given as recently as last April.

Mr. Butler: I cannot go into the merits at business time. I was asked whether we could provide time to discuss this. In view of the heavy business immediately before us, I cannot see an opportunity at the moment.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the exchanges we had he not only promised to consider whether a debate should be held, but also said that he would consult with his right hon. Friends to see whether the views of the House, strongly felt, could find some expression?

Mr. Butler: I have had consultations, but we have before us immediate business, including the Motion of censure and other matters which are taking up Parliamentary time. It is not that I have not discussed it. I have discussed it and brought to the attention of my colleagues the feelings expressed in the House, but I cannot at present give an undertaking.

BILL PRESENTED

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Bill to make further provision with respect to charges for the provision of dental and optical appliances and dental services under the National Health Service, presented by Mr. J. Enoch Powell; supported by Mr. John Maclay, Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith, and Miss Edith Pitt; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Perhaps I should start by warning those hon. Members who are considering staying in the Chamber that this will be a very boring speech indeed. I am presenting a Bill which is essentially a continuation Measure. It consists of a series of disjointed Clauses, most of which, though useful, are relatively minor amendments to the Army Act, 1955, and the Air Force Act, 1955. They represent the fruits of four years' experience and their generally minor nature is a compliment to the wisdom of the Select Committee and others who were very closely associated with the 1955 Acts. I cannot see any way of fitting together these disjointed Clauses into a polished Parliamentary performance. Therefore, there is nothing for it but to be boring, but as brief as I possibly can.
I want to say something about procedure first. The House will probably agree that the arrangements recommended by the Select Committee have worked and are working well. The Government certainly have no intention of altering the procedure. The Bill will go to a Select Committee once it has had its Second Reading. The Army and Air Force Acts have a wide scope. They embrace enlistment and terms of service, discipline, various financial penalties, billeting, requisitioning of vehicles, and other matters necessary for the control and command of an Army and a Royal Air Force.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Before the Minister leaves that point, may we take it that when he says that the Bill will go to a Select Committee there will also be available a technical committee to advise the Select Committee if necessary? That was part of the original proceeding, it worked extraordinarily well, and I think that it should not be dropped.

Mr. Profumo: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his inquiry


Perhaps I can best answer it by saying that there is a difference between the procedure following the Second Reading of this Bill and what happened last time. We are not now discussing a completely new Army and Air Force (Annual) Act as we were then, and which the Select Committee considered; we are considering the continuation of two Acts that have been working for four years.
I can assure the House that our intention is that this Measure should go to a Select Committee and that, available to that Select Committee, there should be all the technical advice that is usual in Select Committee proceedings and which can be brought from the Departments concerned. If, however, during the course of discussion, that is found not to be enough, I shall certainly undertake to consider reverting to the previous arrangement. I believe that we may not need that, but we are not in any way trying to minimise the importance of the consultations that will take place in the Select Committee after Second Reading, if a Second Reading is granted.
There are bound to be a lot of teething troubles in the working of two Acts that have well over 200 Sections each, but we should note that the number of Amendments proposed in the Bill is rather small, and that they are minor in character. Clause 1 embodies the prime object of the Bill. It provides for the continuance of the Acts until the end of 1962, and thereafter to the end of 1966, by annual Orders in Council which, of course, require affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
Another main object of the Bill is to make provision from 1st January, 1962, for a man to enlist in the Royal Air Force initially on a pensionable engagement; that is, of twenty-two years. At present, anyone who wants to join the Royal Air Force can do so only for a term of up to twelve years or, if he enlisted as a boy, twelve years after reaching age 18. He has to wait until he has completed four years' man's service before he can apply to re-engage to complete twenty-two years' service.
The change is designed as a recruiting inducement. There is evidence from headmasters, career masters and parents that the present limited engagement acts

as a deterrent, and that more would be willing to enlist if, at the time of enlistment, they knew that they could serve on to earn a pension, and would not be faced with the possibility of their service being terminated at the end of twelve years with only a gratuity. The objection to allowing young men to commit themselves to a long period of service when they do not know what life in the forces is like is met, I think, by a provision that gives them the right to take their discharge after a prescribed period, which will not be more than twelve years after reaching age 18.
We are taking the opportunity which the Amendment gives to correct a minor anomaly, which also applies in the Army. At present, men aged between 17½ and 18 enlist on an engagement commencing on the day of attestation. They do not, however, qualify for a pension until they have served twenty-two years from the age of 18. Such men, therefore, have to extend their service for a few months in order to complete their twenty-two years from the age of 18. This is administratively inconvenient. What is more important, it leaves some men with a sense of grievance, because the 22-year engagement is generally referred to as a pensionable engagement. This Bill now provides for a fully pensionable initial engagement for all men over the age of 17½.
Both in the Army Enlistment Clauses—Clauses 2 to 7—and in the Air Force Enlistment Clauses—Clauses 8 to 15—provision is made for those who enlist under the age of 18 to do so for a term of service up to the age of 18, and thereafter for twenty-two years. That means that there will now be a single, clear code, without the need to refer to the two earlier Acts, and it will apply to all those who enlist after the end of 1961
One of the aspects of the 1955 Act which the Army Council and the Air Council have had to study carefully has been the question of punishments. All the advice that we have had from the military authorities themselves—and, indeed, from the Judge Advocate General—has been to the effect that there is a gap in the scales of punishment as they exist at present. For officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers that gap occurs between forfeiture of seniority, on the one hand, and severe reprimand, on the other; and, for


soldiers and airmen, between detention on the one hand and restriction of privileges on the other hand.
In each case, the higher punishment is often too severe a penalty, particularly for officers who, if they are made to forfeit seniority, may consequently suffer loss of pay over their careers as a whole because, as the House will see, they may lose increments or, indeed, their promotion prospects as such may even be affected.
We have, therefore, decided on the measure that appears in Clause 18, in order that this gap should be bridged and to give the necessary flexibility. We are not really doing anything new here. We are extending a principle that already exists in the Army and Air Force Acts. Forfeiture of pay can already be ordered for other ranks when they are on active service and, of course, they lose their pay while they are under sentence of detention.
Sentence of forfeiture of seniority on officers, warrant officers and noncommissioned officers may well involve them in a severe loss of pay, so the principle is already there. Clause 18 extends that principle, and provides a financial penalty that is at once more precise and less severe than forfeiture of seniority. In the case of other ranks, this means that we will now be able to dock a man's pay without having to be deprived of his services at the same time—and that is very important in certain circumstances.
The new punishment of
… forfeiture of a sum from pay …
may be awarded summarily or by court-martial, and will apply to all ranks, whether on active service or not. The power of a commanding officer or an appropriate superior authority to award the punishment will be subject to the accused's right to elect trial by court-martial. For a civil offence, the maximum, within a limit of fourteen days' pay will not exceed the maximum fine that a civil court in the United Kingdom could award for the same offence—

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: We are not extending the area of the crimes or misdemeanours? I suppose that they remain the same, according to Queen's Regulations?

Mr. Profumo: I am not now seeking to legislate for the misdemeanours. I only ask the House to consider the punishment for certain kinds of misdemeanours. However, from his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a gap that is unfair to officers and other ranks in both services. I want to prescribe a punishment that it will be fair to award, and that will fill the gap for misdemeanours that are too serious for the lower award and not serious enough for the higher one. That is what we seek to do.
There may be some hon. Members, particularly those who were associated with the original Select Committee, who may wonder why my Department advised against the introduction of fines at that time, and yet here I am today proposing to insert a similar punishment into the Acts. Well, I think that there is a very real difference between what I am proposing and what was then under consideration. The earlier proposals were directed towards providing a considerable severer penalty than what we now have in mind. In 1955, the Select Committee concentrated almost entirely on the punishment available for officers. It was concerned with the question of whether there should be any form of punishment between dismissal and severe reprimand and, if so, what it should be. The Committee considered both reduction in rank and heavy fines up to a maximum of £200. The suggestion was even made at one time in the evidence that fines should rank as a more severe punishment than forfeiture of seniority.
Finally, the Committee came to the conclusion that neither fines nor reduction in rank were to be preferred to the well recognised and accepted punishment of forfeiture of seniority. We have now had four years' experience and, in the light of that, as I have just said, it has become quite clear—and my right hon. Friend and I are perfectly convinced—that we do need some sort of penalty between forfeiture of seniority and severe reprimand, for officers, war-ant officers and non-commissioned officers, and between detention and restriction of privilege for soldiers and airmen.
We have come to the conclusion that the best means of meeting this is what we are proposing in Clause 18. The


relatively low maximum of fourteen days' pay, which, of course, excludes allowances, should ensure that there is no undue hardship.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: Would the right hon. Gentleman make one thing clear? Has he in mind that this would be not only an additional punishment, but would replace, to some extent, a great number of petty punishments—confined to barracks, confined to camp, and that sort of thing—or does it not deal with that category of offence at all?

Mr. Profumo: I think that it will be fairly clear when we send out the instructions later on that it is between the two categories. I am asking for legislation now, not for further punishment for the really petty offences, but that we insert this punishment in the scale between the really petty punishments and the more serious ones. If it is wished, this punishment can be awarded in conjunction with other punishment. That is the gap I am hoping that we shall plug. Thereby soldiers and airmen who commit offences which are a little more serious than petty ones will not either have to be given the petty punishments, or punishments which are much too severe. I hope that it will become clearer, as we discuss the Bill in Committee, that the aim is to plug the gap which my right hon. Friend and I believe exists between either too severe punishment or punishment which is not severe enough.

Mr. George Wigg: At present there are three monetary penalties which can be awarded against a soldier. First, if he is absent without leave there is automatic forfeiture of pay. The commanding officer does not, as it were, punish by so doing; he merely informs him that, automatically, he is forfeiting pay. The second category is in the case of a soldier who, for example, damages a vehicle. He can then be awarded deprivation of pay, not to compensate the public for the damage involved but, as it were, as a warning to others. Then there is the third category, the case of drunkenness. This is the only case, as I understand it, in civil law, where a man can be fined if it is a second or third offence. In which category does the right hon. Gentleman place his new proposals?

Mr. Profumo: I am suggesting a new category altogether, something which has not existed, but which I would like to insert in the new Acts. It does not really cover any of the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
One of the best examples I can give is a motoring offence. If one looks at motoring offences, which take place in B.A.O.R., one finds that there is an enormous number that would be dealt with in a civil court by a fine and yet at present one has either to deal with them by restriction of privileges—which is not enough, in many cases—or by something very much more serious.
If one awards detention, there is the loss of pay which is, in effect, a fine, but there is also the loss of the man's services at the same time. So, for these crimes or misdemeanours, call them what you will, we wish to insert this new punishment which, on all the information we can obtain from the Armed Forces and the Judge Advocate-General will, we think, be fair.

Mr. E. Shinwell: This is very interesting. Do I understand that, apart from some vague categories which are referred to in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman proposes specifically to define the categories so that the officers and men will know beforehand, in the event of any misdemeanour or crime being committed, what the punishment is likely to be?

Mr. Profumo: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when punishment is defined or is made legal, very clear administrative instructions are sent out. It is certainly the intention of my right hon. Friend and myself to see that most careful administrative instructions are sent out to commanding officers, courts-martial, and so on, in order to be quite sure that it is clearly understood what this new punishment is meant to do. I hope that the House will agree, when it considers the matter, that there is a need for some such punishment. However, we will discuss that later. Certainly, I will give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking.
I will now run through some of the other Clauses as quickly as I can. For the most part these are minor refinements and I think that I need only describe briefly why the changes are considered


necessary. The first is Clause 16, which concerns the enlistment and conditions of service of the Royal Marines, which are provided for in the Seventh Schedule to the Army Act. At the time the Act was passed the engagement structure for the Marines—and, indeed, for the Royal Navy—was a twelve-year engagement, followed by one of ten years.
The structure has since been altered to provide for three engagements of nine, five and eight years, in that order. It was possible to introduce the new structure under existing legislation but it is necessary to amend the Seventh Schedule to clarify the law and to simplify administration. The Amendments do not alter principles or impose any additional restrictions.
Clause 17 makes minor changes in the circumstances in which field punishment and forfeiture of pay may be awarded to other ranks under active service conditions. At present, field punishment and forfeiture of pay, may only be awarded when the offence is actually committed on active service. The main object of the Clause is to allow punishments to be awarded when the offender is on active service at the time when sentence is announced.
Clause 19 extends the provisions of Section 24 (1) of the Army and Air Force Acts. This makes it an offence for any one who is subject to military or Air Force law to furnish the enemy with arms or ammunition or with supplies of any description with the intent to assist the enemy. The terms "arms", "ammunition" and "supplies" have particular, well-known meanings in the Services and they do not cover the whole field of possible material assistance to the enemy. For example, a man could "flog" a tank to the enemy if he wanted to and we could not bring a charge against him under the existing Section—it is as simple as that. I think that hon. Gentlemen on both sides will realise that somehow we have to plug this loophole.
Clause 20 is designed to permit a charge to be preferred against a man who knowingly receives the proceeds of the sale of public property by another soldier.
Clause 21 will enable a commanding officer to order a man to revert to an acting rank lower than that held by him

but higher than his permanent rank. At present, he can order only reversion to permanent rank and this, sometimes, can be over severe.
Clause 22 repeals Section 80 (2) of the 1955 Acts which prohibit a higher authority from referring back a charge for dismissal when the accused has elected to be tried by court-martial and has not withdrawn his election. This is to make it unnecessary to hold quite pointless courts-martial.
Clause 23 introduces a small change designed to benefit the defence in court-martial proceedings. The object is to enable the defence to put in a statutory declaration within seven days before trial if the commanding officer agrees.
Clause 24 deals with the review of summary proceedings. It often happens that someone is tried summarily and is found guilty of two or more offences and that one award is made by the commanding officer in respect of both findings. When that happens, the award must be quashed if any one of the findings is quashed. The new provision will enable the reviewing authority to vary its summary award by remitting in whole or in part any punishment awarded or by commuting the whole award.
With the run-down of the size of our forces, many more civilians are being employed, and in some Army and Air Force units only one or two serving officers are on the establishment. The remainder of the senior staff are civilians. We have now to provide, therefore, for civilians in the service of the Crown to be eligible to sit on boards on inquiry and to be members or presidents of unit inquiries. Clause 25 does this and, at the same time, it reaffirms the domestic nature of these inquiries by incorporating in the Acts the definition of those allowed to attend which applied before the 1955 Acts took effect.
I shall not delay the House very long on Clauses 26 to 34. Soon after the 1955 Acts came into force, it was noticed that fines imposed before men joined the Services could not be deducted from pay. This power had long been provided for under previous Acts and no change was ever intended. There have been complaints from magistrates' courts about this omission, and Clause 26 puts it right.
Clause 27 corrects an anomaly. Under Section 147 of the Acts, a man can be ordered to pay compensation for loss of or damage to public or Service property by wrongful act or negligence, and the compensation can be deducted from his pay. Sometimes, in consequence of a court-martial sentence, a man has been discharged before such an order can be made. Clause 27 will enable recovery to be made from any credit balance in his account.
Clause 28 extends the power of the Army and Air Councils to enforce maintenance orders to include orders made in respect of children of the serviceman's wife who are accepted by him as members of his family. This follows the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act, 1960.
Clause 29, in general, gives power to clerks of courts to sign certificates of arrest or surrender of deserters and absentees. The Amendment is necessary because not every court of summary jurisdiction consists of justices of the peace.
Clauses 30 to 33 extend the Army Act to special offences relating to aircraft and aircraft material in the Air Force Act. Now that the Army is operating its own light aircraft, it is desirable that the two Acts should be brought into line on this matter.
Clause 34 makes individual members of colonial forces subject to military or Air Force law, as the case may be, when serving with United Kingdom forces anywhere outside their Colony and not only in the United Kingdom as at present.
Clause 35 is essentially an amendment of a technical nature but, because it impinges on the Act of Settlement, I think that the House would like to hear an explanation. Queen's commissions in the United Kingdom land forces have been given to British-protected persons who have then been seconded for service in colonial forces, because the Act of Settlement does not permit places or offices of trust under the Crown to be occupied by those who are not British subjects. This procedure is permissible, as Section 21 of the Acts allows a limited number of aliens to serve in the United Kingdom land and air forces. In present circumstances, however, it is undesirable to perpetuate this practice. Protectorates

and Colonial Territories are rapidly advancing towards independence, and it is sensible that the officers in the forces of those territories should be commissioned in those forces and not in the forces of the United Kingdom.
Clause 35 is retrospective and covers a wide range, embracing British-protected persons who have or will have Governors' commissions or who have been promoted to warrant officer or noncommissioned officer. This is to remove all doubt, and it amends both the Army and Air Force Acts.
Clause 36 depends on an amendment to Queen's Regulations for the Army which we shall make to create the rank of lance-corporal and lance-bombardier. Lance-corporal and lance-bombardier have been and will continue to represent the first advancement in responsibility private soldiers make towards attaining non-commissioned officer status and, later, warrant officer status. It is a difficult change for many private soldiers since they have to move apart, consciously or unconsciously, in various ways, in the interests of discipline, from other private soldiers with whom they have been companions. The majority assimilate the change and become successful non-commissioned officers, but a greater proportion fail to succeed than in any subsequent promotion.
Our object is to make their assimilation easier by adding status to those who are promoted by making lance-corporal and lance-bombardier a rank and not an appointment. At the same time, there is the probationary aspect of this first promotion. Commanding officers at present have power to take away the appointment of lance-corporal. They must keep that power, because they are in the best position to judge suitability.

Brigadier Sir Otho Prior-Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend make clear whether he is referring to pay? He is referring to the paid appointment or rank and not to the acting-unpaid lance-corporal.

Mr. Profumo: I am speaking about the proper rank, the paid rank. They are paid for an appointment. Now, as my hon. and gallant Friend will understand, instead of being paid for an appointment they will be paid for a rank. It will become a rank. I am not talking


about pay. Clause 36 allows commanding officers, as I say, to retain the necessary power to which I have just referred, if they wish
I should tell the House that we have considered whether there ought to be an alteration to Section 14 of the Acts which deals with discharge by purchase, especially in the light of the fact that, in the Army at any rate, there is a disturbingly large number of men making use of this provision. We have decided that, on the whole, it is best to leave things as they are. It seems to me that, with today's standard of living, one would have to raise the purchasing-out sum very considerably to make it prohibitive and thereby to discourage people from buying themselves out by this means.
I do not think that this would be right. After all, in industry large sums of money are spent on trainees and, for the most part, they are perfectly free to leave whenever they wish. I think that it would be wrong and, what is more, I believe that it would be against the interests of recruiting, which the House has so much at heart, if it were felt that we were trying to hold a man to the forces against his will by making the price of purchasing out prohibitive. Anyway, if a man has made a genuine mistake in coming into the forces, I am not sure that it is not far better to let him go. We want willing soldiers, and we have every intention of making the Army more attractive to worthwhile recruits so that they will not want to purchase their own discharge.
The House may like to know that I have called for a comprehensive study by the Army Operational Research Group to find out why more recruits are buying their discharge from the Army within three months of joining up. Meanwhile, hon. Members will, no doubt, wish to know that we had decided to leave the Section as it stands. Incidentally, I will mention that the number of new recruits into the Army has encouragingly increased in December and January.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the number of men who asked for their discharge during, let us say, the last twelve months?

Mr. Profumo: Without notice, I would rather not answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. There is some

conflict in the figures, and I am having it gone into very carefully. I should not wish to mislead the House. The percentage is very much higher.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and the House will forgive me if I am not accurate in my figures—I do not wish to mislead—but I think that, according to the last figures I saw, the percentage of those who purchased themselves out is over 10 per cent. This is a very serious matter. I do not think that we can cure it, or that we should be right to try to cure it, by making it prohibitive for Service men to buy themselves out. It is something which must be looked at. Not only do we wish to attract more recruits, but we want to keep them in. Perhaps our recruiting drive is so successful that we are inducing people to join the Army who do not really want to join and who may be bad soldiers. That is the sort of thing that I am trying to find out.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Is it possible for the Minister to find a method of obtaining the information after the men have actually left the Army? I am sure that he will find some reticence on the part of Service men in giving a truthful answer until the time has come when they have actually left. If he can do something in this direction, he may be able to hear something more like a truthful indication of why people leave by purchase.

Mr. Profumo: I take the hon. Member's point. We have no intention of marching a whole lot of men into a room and saying, "Why do you want to leave the Army?" That would not be the answer. The Operational Research Group will take quite a long time to do its work, because it will have to make a thorough examination. It will consider people who have left as well as those who are to leave. Many men who buy themselves out do so because their mothers or girl friends have "got at them" and said, "You can do better in civilian life".
On the other hand, many men have joined the Army—I do not know whether it is the same with the Royal Air Force—because they have had a row in their family and think that the Army is an opportunity to get away from it all. When they join they find that there


is discipline, make up the row in the family and then out they go. I believe that we are best without people who genuinely find that they have made a mistake and will not make good soldiers. I do not think that we have to go into the by-ways and ditches to get the 165,000–180,000 Army. I have digressed to explain why I do not think it is wise for us to have £20 as the basic sum for which a man can buy himself out.

Mr. Winterbottom: Is the Minister prepared, after an examination, to reveal, perhaps in a White Paper, the reason why men leave the Army? As the right hon. Gentleman said, it may be that there are conditions in the Army, such as regulations, which prompt soldiers to seek their discharge. May we have an analysis at some stage of the position, including all the factors which are responsible for discharge?

Mr. Profumo: I prefer not to commit myself precisely to what I can do when I finish with this inquiry, but I will give the hon. Gentleman and the House this undertaking. The purpose of the inquiry is not merely to ask people why they are buying themselves out. It will be very comprehensive and will cover the point whether man-management is as it should be. I do not doubt that it is, but it will cover that. If, at the end of this operation, I find that I have some information which I feel would be of value to the House and nation, I shall not hesitate to make it public.

Mr. Wigg: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's liberal declaration that he proposes to stand by Section 14, and the rate of £20 established forty years ago, I take it that he has under consideration the rate of purchase after three months, which jumps sharply from £20 to £250. If that is not so, then his argument is nonsense.

Mr. Profumo: I do not think that it is nonsense—at least, I hope that it is not. I thought about it carefully knowing that the hon. Gentleman would be listening. I am concerned only with the question of purchasing out in the first three months. I do not want to put that up. That is the important point. The examination which I am having about recruits and man-management will cover the whole field.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman fails to understand that under Section 14 a soldier has a statutory right. It has nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman or his military advisers. A man can say, "I will buy myself out far £20." On the completion of three months and a day, he has to say, "Please may I go?" and has to pay £250. There is a sharp change in the policy. If the right hon. Gentleman is impelled by liberal motives, he ought to have another look at the figure of £250.

Mr. Profumo: We will certainly look at the £250, but that seams to be a different problem. I am concerned with the statutory period during which a man is allowed to buy himself out, and whether we should still permit him to buy himself out or raise the sum to such an extent that it becomes not a statutory permission, but prohibitive. It will be better to discuss the details of this matter later.
I have no desire to delay the House. This is a Second Reading speech. I have had to go into detail because it is a strange Measure. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. No doubt hon. Members on both sides will want to raise points about the Bill and about my speech. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air will, as far as he possibly can, reply to those points at the end of the debate. I ask hon. Members to remember, however, that the Bill will go to the Select Committee, where the provisions can be considered in detail. I am sorry that I have spoken at greater length than I said I would.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: As the Secretary of State said, the Bill is an awkward one for Second Reading, because it consists of many Committee points. I think that he did himself less than justice in warning us that his speech would be boring and dreary. I would say that it was a low-flying speech, suitable to a former Lysander pilot. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, by flying low he presents less of a target to the other side. The details of the Bill are much more suitable for investigation by the Select Committee and for discussion during the Committee stage, which will take place in the House_
We welcome the appointment of a Select Committee in accordance with the


procedure for which my hon. Friends were responsible. It is a tribute to my hon. Friends that the same procedure should have been in operation for five years, and, so far as I know, there are no strong objections to it from either side. We will carefully bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said about the technical committee. Undoubtedly, from everything I have heard, the Departmental Committee was of the greatest value to the Select Committee when the Army Act was being considered.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Select Committee's work should be confined to the provisions of the Bill. As I understand it the Select Committee will range, if it so wishes, over the whole of the Army Act. Therefore, it may well be that there is a substantial job to do and that the work and assistance of the Departmental Committee will be useful to the Select Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a tribute to those who formed the Act that there are so few amendments in the Bill. That may be so. Equally, it may be that the Government have not probed deeply enough into what needs to be done. It may well be that the Select Committee will find a number of constructive suggestions to make which should be embodied in the Bill. We must remember the mess which the Select Committee had to clear up because of the inertia of successive Governments, but we are aware that the Government have the last word in the changes which it suggests.
I am sure that it will very much fortify discipline and morale in the Army for the men to know that it is an offence to "flog" a tank to the enemy under Clause 19. We are also glad to know that, if required, a man can be fined for this under Clause 17. Even if he has left the Service, he can still be fined under Clause 27 of the Bill.
In general, I propose to leave the detailed Clauses to the Committee stage. Perhaps the most important part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was when he touched on the question of wastage. There is a great deal of concern on this side, and, I imagine, on the benches opposite, about this point. Coming fresh to this subject, in looking at the way the discussions have gone in the

past, I have been surprised at the tremendous emphasis placed on the intake of recruits into the Army and the lack of attention which seems to be given to the wastage of recruits during the three months after they are taken in. The intake position is serious, although we were all cheered to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the December figures. The November figures were not much to be encouraged about, but the December ones are definitely better. That is something which is very welcome.
We must also consider the "leaks" in the first three months. The Minister said that there was over 10 per cent. wastage in the first three months, but the figures published in The Times recently showed that, of the 14,600 men who joined the Army for the first time in the twelve months up to October, 3,129 left in three months. That is a very formidable figure. Of these, most left through purchase-2,000 of the 3,129 left by purchasing for £20 their discharge—and the others left for medical and other reasons.
I was very struck, when paying a visit to Aldershot—I now express my thanks to the Minister for the facilities given to me—and asking about the reason for some of this wastage, to find the great difference of wastage between one unit and another. I hope that this is one of the matters which the inquiry will look into very carefully. It is natural, I suppose, for units which set themselves a particularly difficult standard to achieve to have a greater range of wastage than others.

Sir O. Prior-Palmer: No.

Mr. Mayhew: I am putting this forward as an argument to show that, in fact, this does not account for the differential rate of wastage between units. I have been to parachute and airborne troops depots where the rate of wastage is 50 per cent. Of the recruits who leave the parachute and airborne forces within three months, 20 per cent. go to other branches of the Service, but 30 per cent. leave the Army altogether. That is a very disturbing and significant point.
At the R.A.C. depot, I found that out of 170 new recruits, only two had purchased their discharge. It is plain that if that record of wastage went throughout the Army our recruiting problem would be solved over night. I had the


impression that troops had been marched into barrack rooms and asked why they were proposing to buy their discharge, and that the reasons given, in those conditions, had some family content in a very high proportion of the cases.
I had the feeling that, although the Army recognises the importance of acclimatising troops for unusual climates and conditions, it has, perhaps, not studied so much the task of acclimatising civilians to Army life during the first three months. This may be so. It does not seem to me that because a man is slow to acclimatise himself it necessarily follows that he will not make a first-class soldier once he has settled down. It may well be that this high rate of wastage, if it could be stopped, would lead to a number of people serving successfully and effectively in the Army.
I welcome very much the proposal to have a thorough-going inquiry by the Army Operational Research Group. I ask the Minister whether the Group has started work and, if not, when it will do so. Perhaps he will let us know later, a little more precisely, what its terms of reference will be. I am glad to hear that its terms are to be wide and that it will investigate why people leave the Army, and, I hope, why they do not, and why there is this differentiation between one unit and another. Perhaps it will be possible to pinpoint a little more accurately which kind of recruit makes the best soldier so that our recruiting propaganda can be a little more discriminating. All that would help.
We have to realise that the Army may have got used to dealing with National Service recruits who cannot purchase their discharge in the first three months. We can make a mistake about a National Service recruit and perhaps get away. with it, but if we make a bad mistake about a voluntary recruit we may lose a potentially good soldier altogether. For these reasons the inquiry will be of great importance. I am glad to have the assurance of the Minister that he proposes to keep the House fully informed on this subject. It would be particularly interesting to know what have been the overall rates of wastage in recent years, and what are the different rates of wastage in different units.
This problem of manpower is, of course, still absolutely crucial and one

which, I have no doubt, will come up again in the debate on the Estimates and, perhaps, in the defence debate, as well. I ask that, either today or during those debates, we should be given an up-to-date picture of the number of battalions under strength, and what is meant by a battalion being under strength. I particularly noticed 'that in the debate last November, in reply to pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), the Parliamentary Secretary gave figures showing that 47 battalions were up to or over strength and 16 battalions were below strength. It would be good to have an up-to-date statement and to be quite clear what the Minister means by "up to strength".
Hon. Members will probably have seen, as I did, the disturbing report bearing on these problems in The Times last week, from its military correspondent, which said:
… The Rhine Army will have to face the fact that it has too many units with too few men in them to be effective.
That was the very serious conclusion of this article. The whole report seemed to confirm the worst misgivings expressed by 'both sides of the House on this question of manpower shortage. It gave a picture of an army capable of launching a devastating nuclear blow, but so equipped, organised, trained and deployed as to be virtually incapable of operating in any conventional rôle at all, and this not through lack of resources but, it appears, through policy.
The report said that last year there were no major exercises at all by B.A.O.R., except on the assumption of the use of nuclear weapons. I have no doubt that other hon. Members and I will return to this point later, in further debates, and also to the tasks which the Army has in parts of the world other than in Germany. Our aim will be, in general, that the task given to this Army shall be fairly matched by its resources. That has not always been the case. It was not the case in 1956 and in 1939. If we are to have an Army at all, it is, I know, the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House that it must be properly trained, properly equipped, properly organised and deployed. That will be the aim of my 'hon. Friends and myself in carrying this Bill further in Committee.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I was very interested in what my right hon. Friend had to say in introducing the Bill. He dealt with a whole series of Committee points. But this is particularly the time when the Government should come to the House and justify our having a standing Army in time of peace. My right hon. Friend did not give one reason why we needed a standing Army in time of peace. Judging by the size of the Army, and the reported reduction in some of the units and the withdrawal of units, I think that it may be symptomatic that he does not believe that a standing Army is justified today.
There are three very important reasons why we need a standing Army at present. We have the very obvious reason that we need it to defend ourselves. We need it to take our share of the obligations that we have in various regional pacts to which we belong; our obligation, for instance, in N.A.T.O. I think that he could easily have justified our having an Army by telling us that we have an obligation in N.A.T.O. for about 55,000 troops and that we probably have not at the moment 50,000 troops in the British Army of the Rhine. At the same time, those troops are distributed not in units that can pack punch, but in a number of units that are fine on paper, but of which I would think that practically none is up to strength and capable of engaging in an operational rôle immediately.
There are reports that British troops will probably be withdrawn from the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve in Malaya. One of the justifications for our having an Army is that we should be able to have troops in the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve to fulfil our obligations in that part of the world. I have been glad to hear of the denial by my right hon. Friend that the Far East is to have a reduction in troops, but there seems to be doubt whether Malaya is part of the Far East.
There is justification for having part of our Army to look after our interests in, for instance, the Eastern Mediterranean. We have had many debates in the House about the vital importance of a garrison in Cyprus. My right hon. Friend might have mentioned something about this, or is it possible that Cyprus is

now becoming merely a store dump with simply a few troops to maintain the stores and to look after the airfields?
The second important reason for having an adequate Army—I am glad of the opportunity to make the case, as my right hon. Friend omitted to do so—is the necessity of dealing with certain emergencies that may arise from time to time outside our larger international obligations. For example, if an emergency arose—I do not envisage it, but it is always a possibility—in some part of the Colonial or Commonwealth Territories where we were required to help, we would need to have troops immediately to go and do a job to protect British persons and property.
A third reason, which is as important as any, is the stability that a standing Army by its mere presence can give in certain areas. If we are to pursue our existing colonial and Commonwealth policy, which I wholeheartedly support, it is essential that Mir troops are seen to be in certain of these areas to ensure that emergencies do not arise. It is all very well to say that we can fly troops out to Kenya, for example, but unless troops are seen and known to be at Kahawa and Gil Gil, so that they can deal with an emergency should it arise, they are not doing their most important job. If they are there, the emergency is not nearly as likely to arise. For these three particular reasons, I should like to see the Army Act carried forward another year and I feel that we are justified in having a standing Army.
I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is investigating the problem of leakage. It is a most important one and should have been investigated long ago. Two or three years ago, it caused concern to a number of officers and it should have been looked into from the War Office sooner.
I hope, too, that before long, my right hon. Friend will consider the size that is required of a standing Army to carry out the tasks that face it and that by next year, if not sooner, he will be able to come to the House and show that there has been some rethinking about the size of the Army that is needed in these times and, furthermore and more importantly, how he will get those men to have a standing Army to justify.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: Regrettably, there are few ex-National Service men, as opposed to ex-Service men, on this side of the House. I speak as one and, before I deal with the Act, I should like to say that I welcome the ending of National Service. I have always believed that it was a great waste of time, not only for the men concerned, but for the Army. It was a great waste of the Army's resources.
Nothing is more demoralising for a unit than to have a large percentage of National Service men. Great tribute has been paid to the work they did. I was one of them and I accept the tributes which have been paid to us, but there is nothing worse than for a platoon of 30 or 40 men to have 15 or 20 National Service men each chalking up the number of days to their release. How could a National Service officer be expected to participate in his commanding officer's efforts to retain the men in his unit when they themselves, as in my case, were counting the days to their discharge to civilian life? I hope that never again in time of peace will we have compulsory military service.
The figures of 165,000 and 180,000 men have been bandied about in previous debates on the Army and the Government have indicated that if one of these figures—I am not sure which—is not arrived at, "some special measures", to use the words of the Secretary of State, may have to be taken. I hope that this will not mean the reintroduction of National Service.
With the abolition of National Service, one thing which is obvious—it may sound platitudinous, but I do not think that its extent has been appreciated—is that less manpower will be needed to train National Service men and, therefore, the Regular soldiers can be better deployed. Nothing is worse for a platoon sergeant or corporal engaged in a course of weapon or any other kind of training of instruction to have a new draft of two or three men joining him every few weeks and having to restart his course of training time after time. That will be obviated.
I am, however, seriously concerned whether the best use is made of the men in the Army. I was glad of the indication given by the Secretary of State that

more civilians are now being used for the tasks previously performed by soldiers. A large number of Regular soldiers are employed in extra-regimental and regimental duties which were not exactly military duties. These men could be better deployed than they are today.
Not many years ago, I was one of a number of men who were employed as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Territorial Army, the Army Cadets and the women's Forces. The first battalion of the fine Welch Regiment came back from Hong Kong. I had the privilege of joining it. The battalion was posted to a place which had no training facilities whatever and when the summer came, the whole battalion was split up. Two companies were sent to one part of Wales, another company was sent 200 miles away and another was sent elsewhere a distance away to service the Territorial Army.
There is nothing worse for morale than that a whole battalion should be split up in this way. Again, there was nothing more demoralising than the work that they had to do. It is always to be expected that some men in every unit have to perform tasks which are not directly of military or tactical relevance. but when a whole battalion was split up to perform largely menial duties it was a complete waste of time both for the National Service men and the Regular soldiers. The commanding officer when he came back from Hong Kong was glad to be able to boast that not one court-martial had been held during the previous year, but as soon as the men started languishing in Pembroke Dock that wet winter the rate of offences began to soar and absence without leave was a normal rather than an abnormal event for a large number of men every Monday morning.
It was interesting to look at the employment of these men. In a company in which I served, twenty men were deployed to put up tents for the Territorial Army. This was their sole occupation during the whole summer. How could one expect men in this unit to continue to serve and re-enlist or try, when they got home, to persuade men to join the Regular Army? That unit was part of the country's reserve, but who could suggest that after this whole year of doing nothing the unit could have been regarded in any shape or form as a


fighting force if it had been called upon as a fire extinguisher in any part of the globe?
I seriously ask the Secretary of State to consider how many men are deployed in the country today in activities of this nature, servicing other units and not participating in training but carrying out menial tasks. This was not the only unit that was so employed at this time. The Scots Greys, as well, had a couple of squadrons performing similar tasks. A large number of the standing Army in the country may well be still deployed in matters which are not strictly necessary and indeed are demoralising for a unit and for the Army as a whole.
At the time of which I speak there were National Service men who could boast that at the end of 18 months' Service they had spent some time in training at brigade headquarters, some time in holding, companies waiting for the regiment to return, then more than a year doing no training whatsoever and may be the last months of their service receiving some training as soldiers for battle. I am afraid that there is a great deal of waste of this kind still going on.
As for recruiting, pay is not the be all and end all of a soldier's life. The conditions of his work are equally important, and I am not speaking about physical conditions but that aspect of conditions which is concerned with leave and off-duty hours. A man in industry has a reasonable certainty of when he will have his annual holiday, but the soldier has no idea when he will get his leave. Obviously, because of the exigencies of the Service, it is not possible to forecast with comparable accuracy a man's leave as a man's holiday when he is engaged in industry. I have known cases where men have planned their holidays only to find their leave cancelled at the last minute. I know that it is not possible to introduce standards into military life similar to those in civilian life in this respect. but I hope that when the Minister attends to recruiting he will go into this question of some degree of reasonable certainty for the soldier.
As for the enlistment of boys as young soldiers, I am glad that the term of enlistment for 22 years is to be brought up to the date of attestation rather than

to the age of 18 years. Now, when pressure is brought on industry to give young boys and girls time off to attend day classes, I hope that, even though Army education officers do a good job, in units where advantage can be taken of suitable classes run by local authorities these young boy soldiers will be enabled to participate in them.
On the subject of discipline, I welcome the introduction of forfeiture of pay as a punishment. But where in the past there has been, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) indicated, a forfeiture of pay for doing something to a vehicle or losing kit or things of that nature, there has been in practice a limit to the amount of pay of which a man could be deprived. The practice that I knew of was that men were allowed to keep some of their pay. Nothing is worse than that a man should be left with nothing at all in his pocket. There should 'be a limit so that he should have a few shillings left at least. When the regulations are made for the forfeiture of pay, I hope that a whole day's pay will not be taken from any man.
I appreciate the amendments which have been made to the court martial procedure even though they are minor. If I may declare a very remote interest as a lawyer in this matter, I should like to ask what the position is nowadays in the matter of defending men who are charged with serious offences. I understand that the Army has a scheme whereby a soldier can obtain legal advice and assistance. I have heard of counsel going to Germany and elsewhere to assist in the defence of prisoners.
Today we have in our ordinary criminal courts an extension of the scheme for legal aid defence certificates. The important point is that the fees for that kind of work have been raised considerably in the last few months so that criminal legal practice has been made more worth while than it was in the past. The advantage of this is that the ordinary accused person can avail himself of a wide range of solicitors and counsel. I hope that the remuneration of counsel who defend accused persons in the Army will be made commensurate with the pay that they would receive for doing similar work in the civil courts.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): Just exactly what is the point that the hon. Member wants answered? Does he want to be sure that counsel available to soldiers or airmen are of comparable standing to those available under the legal aid scheme at home? Is that right?

Mr. Morris: In general, it is. I would not like to comment on the standing of my brethren in the profession, but I would say that if the remuneration were comparable it would be of some assistance in getting people of the same standing. Then in this matter not only would justice be done but it would be seen to be done. I should not like to be tempted further on this subject.
The other point on which I wish to comment is a practical one. I am not sure about this, but I understand that when counsel go out to B.A.O.R. to defend prisoners they are not instructed by solicitors but are assisted by serving officers in the unit. This is a very bad practice. The men should have the assistance of solicitors, who should also go out to help counsel in the preparation of the case. I do not know the extent of this scheme, but does it compare in gravity of offence with the legal aid in the ordinary criminal courts? Would a person who committed a similar crime in civilian life get assistance comparable with that provided in military life?
I welcome Clause 25. As one who has sat for innumerable hours on endless courts of inquiry, I welcome the inclusion of civilians as members. For many serving soldiers these courts of inquiry are a complete waste of time, because they often refer to "Q" matters which civilians would frequently best be able to deal with. There should be a thorough inquiry to see how far jobs of that nature—and, indeed, a far wider range of jobs—could be carried out by civilians. If we found that many jobs could be done by civilians, we could carry out our other commitments with the Army at the figure suggested by the Secretary of State, or even less.
5.2 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: It has already been pointed out in the debate that, technically, it is in order to discuss whether or not we should have an Army or an

Air Force. I am not at all convinced that there is a case for the indefinite continuation of the Air Force, but I will not develop that point. I wish to deal with four points which were very much discussed when the Naval Discipline Act, 1957, was under consideration, and which bear upon our discussions today.
Hon. Members who served on the Select Committee which considered that Act will recall, in the first instance, that pressure was put on all of us to produce a Chinese copy of the disciplinary Clauses of the Army Act, amplified, where necessary, in connection with flying by the diciplinary Clauses of the Air Force Act.
The Select Committee, which eventually had its way, made four rather important modifications. Why have these modifications not been applied to the Army and Air Force Acts now that these amendments are being made?
The first change was in the language of the Act, or, at any rate, in that of the Clauses which defined various offences. It was felt that there are some advantages in having the offences worded in such a way that an ordinary layman can understand what the Clauses mean. That is not so, as anyone who has read the Army and Air Force Acts will agree, in their case. I make a plea that the House should consider whether some of the Clauses that define specific offences could not be reworded in such a way that the ordinary soldier could understand what those offences are.
The second point, which is perhaps of greater importance, concerns what is the "omnibus" Section dealing with offences. This is Section 69 of the main Act, and it is the well known one that goes:
Any person … who is guilty of any act … to the prejudice of good order and military discipline …
Under that Section an offender is liable to up to two years' imprisonment. My objection to it is that it may be used, and is used, as the supporting Section for almost any charge in case the person drawing up the first charge make a mistake. The offender can always be caught on the second charge under that Section.
The original Naval Act, drawn up in the seventeenth century when there was


greater respect for the rule of law than today, had some additional words of vital importance. It included the words:
… breach of good order and naval discipline not hereinbefore mentioned.
After a tremendous battle in the Select Committee—in which, it is right to say, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) played a great part—we got those words inserted into the current Naval Discipline Act. Why has this not been done with this Bill, since the matter was ventilated and debated at some length in the House?
The third point is a smaller one, and concerns flying offences. My recollection is that there are three—dangerous flying, low flying, and flying to annoy—although they are worded in a rather more complicated way. In the Air Force, all three are punishable by imprisonment up to two years. In the Naval Discipline Act, after a great deal of discussion, it was decided that imprisonment on conviction for flying to annoy was a bit over the odds and punishment in that case was reduced. It might be worth while bringing the Air Force Act into line with that change.
The last point is the most important. When the Naval Discipline Act was under consideration we asked the Departmental Committee under what authority what are called "consequential penalties" were imposed. The first answer was that they were imposed under the same authority as in the Army and the Air Force. It is a well known fact that any soldier, sailor or airman who commits a civil offence is liable to be punished a second time on the ground that he has brought disgrace and discredit on his uniform. Furthermore, this second punishment is not, I understand—it was certainly not so in the Navy—the result of a trial, but is an administrative act. Not one word is to be found in the Act about the authority under which this is done.
On pressing the matter, we on the Select Committee were eventually told that it was done under prerogative powers. Accordingly—again, after a very considerable debate—a new Clause was inserted into the Naval Discipline Act restricting the powers to punish a man a second time for a civil offence

after he had been sentenced by the magistrate.
I attach very great importance to this point. It is extremely undesirable that there should be any idea that a man can be punished twice for the same offence, particularly when his second punishment is not the result of a proper trial. I do not wish to mislead the House, however. The final version of the Naval Discipline Act makes provision for trouble for a man convicted of a civil offence. There is power to discharge him, or to reduce his rank. But the power to inflict any other punishment is removed. It would not be a bad idea if the same policy was now followed in the case of the Army and the Air Force.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: If there had been any previous doubt about the scope of the debate, it has been settled by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). It was clear that we could discuss the continuance of the Army and the Air Force in time of peace, and now, apparently, we can discuss the Navy as well.
Perhaps I might for a moment go into the history of this Bill, because we are linked in a very long chain which goes back some 300 years. Up to 1879, there was no permanent legislation, and control of the Army was secured by the annual passing of the Mutiny Act. From that time, there was a permanent Act, kept in being by an annual Act which, by 1952, was very considerably out of date. As a result, a Select Committee was set up and, at the end of its long deliberations, it agreed on the form in which future legislation should be considered. The point was made that, under the Bill of Rights, it was unlawful, without the permission of Parliament, to maintain an Army in being.
It therefore struck me as odd that today we should have had from the Secretary of State for War a catalogue of amendments and nothing about the maintenance of our standing Army in peacetime. The right hon. Member did not have the advantage of being a member of the Select Committee. We, the members of the Select Committee, including Mr. Speaker, thought that we would have some difficulty with hon. Members on both sides of the House because we were asking the House to forgo great privileges and the


passing of the annual Bill, which was exempted business, a fact which compelled the Government to surrender in 1952, because if they had not set up the Select Committee the business of the House could have been brought to a standstill. That right was foregone, and it is perfectly clear, as Erskine May shows, that the House controls the numbers in the Army through Supply and money through the Estimates.
In this debate we should have had a discussion introduced by the Government on the position of the Army in time of peace. Instead, we have had a catalogue of piffling items all of which have to be considered first by a Select Committee and then, on the assurance of the Government, brought back to a Committee of the whole House. It is therefore misunderstanding the purpose of the Select Committee's recommendation that we should have had from the right hon. Gentleman the kind of speech he made today.
My hon. Friends have kindly followed up a question which I put to the Leader of the House last week about the establishment of a technical committee. I gave the Leader of the House notice of my question, because on his answer depended the kind of committee which we would get. He did not feel it possible to give me an answer at the time but, with his usual courtesy, he has since written to me explaining that there was not to be a technical committee and giving his reasons. I think that on the whole he is right, but I want to ask another question. Are the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Air Force and the War Office to be members of the Select Committee? They were on the previous occasion and their presence gave a guarantee that the Select Committee would have the technical services of the Departments available. In essence, the difference in procedure between a Select Committee and a subsequent Committee stage on the Floor of the House is that in a Select Committee witnesses can be called. The presence of Ministers to give guidance is, therefore, of paramount importance.
I do not suppose that I shall be a member of the Select Committee, but my rights will be fully safeguarded, as will those of all other hon. Members, by the proceedings when the matter comes before the House or on Committee in

its usual way. If there is any matter which any Member wants to have raised or examined, it can then be dealt with, and it is not those matters of detail which we should be dealing with today but the broader question of principle as on any Second Reading debate.
Let us consider the current background to this subject, comparing the period 1952–54 and today. Since 1952 we have had Suez and the intervention in the Lebanon and the decision of the Government and Opposition to get rid of National Service, and the decisions which have flowed from that. In considering the Bill, we are taking very far-ranging decisions, because the country's ultimate capacity to fulfil its obligations to N.A.T.O. and the Commonwealth depend not on political decisions, but on the terms of enlistment of the various parts of the Armed Forces.
An illustration which I have often used is that the best Army this country has ever sent out was the Army of 1914. Its quality depended on the old Army Bill and on the Cardwell reforms of many years before. I believe that the great differences which have stricken the Opposition stem from the fact that the Opposition agreed to a short-service engagement which made an easy transition from conscription to a voluntary Army almost impossible. Indeed, it was only in 1957 that the Government took the policy decision of getting a long-service Army.
It is no good for us, the French, the Americans, the Germans or even the Russians, to say that we will do this or that unless the structure and organisation of our Forces are framed in such a way as to enable us to do so. I find myself in constant difficulty with some of my hon. and right hon. Friends. At the time of the defence debate a year ago, I was absolutely sure that we had said goodbye to an independent British deterrent, but we have now come full circle, the only difference being that for Blue Streak one should read Polaris, plus the fact, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), until recently a spokesman for the party, has pointed out, that we are committed to the maintenance of four divisions in Germany.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr.


Morris), who gave the House his experiences of National Service. He hoped that National Service would never return in peacetime. I do not know whether he is a unilateralist or a multilateralist, but I do not know how he can take such a view when the Americans in February will have 6,000 inductees taken into their Armed Forces, making a total of 2½ million men under that scheme since 1950, and while the Russians continue to have conscription.
The trouble is that the policies which have been pursued since the 1955 General Election have involved this country, whatever one may call oneself, in unilateral disarmament. We have in fact disarmed, and we have done it in such a way as to give an absolute guarantee that we shall have no political advantage from that act. We of the Opposition have even denied ourselves the moral advantage of having taken that step, because we argue that we have not taken it.
The Defence White Paper is to come out in a fortnight. There is one figure which it will contain for certain. It will show that £15,000 million has been spent on defence since the present Administration took office, a fair sum, especially compared with the cuts in the National Health Service. We have had an election in which we were told that we had never had it so good, but immediately after the election the Opposition said that it agreed and that things would get better and better.
However, let hon. Members recall the speech of President Kennedy this week when he said:
I speak today in an hour of national peril…
He said that each day the crisis multiplied and added:
Meanwhile, this country has continued to bear more than its share of the West's military and foreign aid obligations'
He said that in the, current year the bill once again had exceeded the estimates by a sum of no less than £700 million.
We have been told by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that we had the nuclear deterrent in the hydrogen bomb and organised our Forces on the lines of the 1957 White Paper in order to speak from strength and in order that our voice should carry weight in the councils of the nations.
Let us look at what we have done. Let us pause for a moment to see where the Army and the Air Force have got us. Where have we got as a result of these policies? The United States has about 2,000 bombers of the V-bomber class. How many have we? The answer is 190 if we are lucky. The first squadron of Mark II bombers, No. 83 Squadron, is just being formed. We have got rid of National Service. The Americans have kept it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is going rather wide of the scope of the debate. It does not cover the whole strategic position.

Mr. Wigg: It is not my intention to discuss the whole strategic position. I will not talk about the Navy or the Naval Discipline Act, but it is the policy of the Government and of the Opposition that we must strengthen N.A.T.O. and 1 am discussing the position to which the present policies have brought us. The Americans have 2,000 V-bombers. We have 190. The Americans have kept National Service, and take in 6,000 inductees a month. We have got rid of it. Mr. Kennedy says "Our mobility is insufficient. It must be speeded up. I must have a report on our forces as a matter of urgency by the end of February". He says "I can only lift a division". We could not lift a battalion. When we had the operation in Libya last year, they did not take the artillery because they could not lift the ammunition. To our great distress, when the Ghanaian troops were going into the Congo they were conveyed by Russian Ilyushins because Royal Air Force Comets did not turn up on time.
We are now faced, and this is an appropriate time to consider it as the White Paper is on the verge of being introduced, with the fact that in July, 1957, the Government reorganised the Army. We are to have 49 battalions of the Line, eight battalions of Guards, and three battalions of Parachutists. Hon. Gentlemen who have walked past Wellington Barracks during the last week will have noticed that the sign of the 3rd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards has been taken down and been replaced by the sign of the 2nd Scots Guards. On 7th February of this year the regiment of the hon. and gallant Member for


Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), the Camerons, will amalgamate with the Seaforths, and the operation will be complete.
We are asked to keep 17 battalions in B.A.O.R. and three battalions in Berlin, and then there are seven major units in Hong Kong, five major units in Malaya, a regimental group in the Cameroons and a battalion in the West Indies, plus, of course, units in the Mediterannean, Africa and the Persian Gulf. All this has to be done within a total of 160,000 or 165,000 men.
As far as I am concerned, the argument about National Service is over. The last man has gone in. It is interesting to note the steps that the Government took a year ago. Quite arbitrarily they decided not to call up 60,000 men. Then the right hon. Gentleman decided to let some of them out before their time, and last week it was announced that some more men were going out from the Army.
Why? Have hon. Members stopped to ask themselves why? The answer is because we cannot afford to pay for them. The policies adopted by both Front Benches of pushing up pay and improving the conditions—all of which had my support—have had one inevitable consequence. Over 50 per cent. of our Estimates are going in pay and improving conditions. That element is so high that we cannot afford either to maintain units at correct establishment or to provide them with equipment to enable them to fight. This is where we have got to in the name of strength.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his first speech on this subject from the Front Bench. He spoke about always being in the forefront of maintaining the nuclear deterrent. He is beginning to learn by reading the excellent articles in The Times. He knows that the Rhine Army can fight only one sort of war, and it cannot do that very well. It is now organised in such a way that it is trained only in terms of fighting a nuclear war. That is what some of us have been saying for the last five years. We have said that ultimately the defence policy of this country would be dictated by the number of men and the amount of money available at any time, and that we would be forced to organise ourselves in such a way as to depend

on the nuclear deterrent. In my view there is no effective nuclear deterrent within our own possession.
Our capacity is less than 3 per cent. of the Americans, and that includes our entire V-Bomber force. We can arm it with Blue Steel. We cannot arm it with Skybolt because that is not ready. We can take into account guided weapons and 8-inch atomic howitzers but our capacity will still not be 3 per cent. of the American capacity. Whatever the figure is today, it will be less in a year's time, and yet President Kennedy said that day by day the crisis increased. Day by day the defence of the free world is called into question.
Until now we have been told by both Front Benches that everything in the garden was lovely. There was complete unanimity when the 1957 White Paper was published. What did it do? This is the time to take stock. It got rid of National Service. It ran our total forces down to 375,000 men. It got rid of the V-Bomber, the bomber which today is extolled as a great virtue. Above all, it was going to save money. It has not saved the money. We are now trying to find a successor to the V-bomber, and we are now trying to make do, not with 375,000 men, but, as regards the Army, 182,000.
The real question which hon. Members on both sides must ask themselves is whether conscription will come back. What we and the country have to face is the consequence of the policies adopted during the last five years. There is now no way out. One can bemuse oneself, and persuade oneself. One can extol the virtues of Polaris. It is perhaps a little belated, but one notices that both the Americans and ourselves—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I think that he is going far beyond the scope of the debate.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have not so far mentioned the Navy. I urge, with great respect, that as long as I do not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East in talking about the Naval Discipline Act I am in order in discussing the functions of the Army and Air Force in time of peace.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that goes rather beyond a debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, because of the recommendations of the Select Committee and the assurances that have been given, I would have thought that it was in order to discuss the maintenance of a standing Army in time of peace.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I agree with the hon. Member that he can discuss the maintenance of a standing Army, but he cannot go into questions of foreign and defence policies. This is not a defence debate.

Mr. Wigg: It has not been my purpose to discuss foreign policy. I am merely discussing the inadequacy of the training and organisation of the Army in relation to the task, not that I lay on it, but which the Government lay on it, the expenditure on it, and its organisation. All those features are related to the maintenance of an Army in peace time, one of the requirements of which is the maintaining by treaty of a considerable force in Germany. My view is that those forces are not there. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) cast doubt on the fact that we had a standing Army. I do not go as far as that, but there is evidence to show that our standing Army is nothing like so strong, as well organised, or as well equipped as the Government would 'have us believe.
If you feel that the point I am trying to make is a little wide of the Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I may make one which is nearer home. By following in my hon. Friend's footsteps I shall keep in order. To start with, there are five major units in Hong Kong.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. For the guidance of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may we be told clearly whether it will be in order to discuss the deployment and adequacy of our Forces? If so, many of us would wish to join in the debate, which we had thought was closed to us.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have a general discussion on the defence issue, but references may be made to the state of the standing Army.

Mr. Shinwell: Under the Bill we are discussing whether we should have a standing Army and, if we have one, what

is to be its nature and size. It seems to me that we can cover quite a lot of ground in discussing those three items. But if we are not discussing whether we should have a standing Army, what are we discussing?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are discussing, among other things, whether we should have a standing Army, but there is a limit to the scope of the discussion. It would be going far too wide to go into the question of defence.

Mr. Shinwell: Let us suppose that the Opposition were strong enough—and it may gather strength in the next hour or so—and the Government, on the other hand, found themselves in a weak position, and it was decided that we Should not have a standing Army. What would be the position then? Surely we should discuss the matter adequately before coming to a decision.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to discuss whether or not we should have a standing Army.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: Some of us are very anxious to speak in the debate. Were you deciding, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that if we talk about the trivial details of our standing Army we shall be in order, but that if we raise the basic question of its nature and function we shall be regarded as going wide of the argument? I am puzzled why you should feel that that is the proper definition of the scope of the argument. We have heard a great deal of trivial argument advanced about the standing Army. We are now hearing the first speech which seriously raises the issue of its justification. I am deeply disturbed that you should feel that you should stop this speech, which seems to be the first one which is relevant to the basic reason for the debate.

Mr. Hall: If it is correct that we can go rather wider than many of us thought, will not this become a defence debate? I fail to see how we can discuss whether or not we should have a standing Army unless we consider the whole defence policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is greatly handicapped because he has only just arrived. If he had been here before


he may have heard this point argued. Perhaps his affairs keep him so busy that he cannot always be in the House. They apparently keep him too busy to enable him to read the Report of Select Committee or Erskine May, which, on page 743, says:
By the procedure laid down in the legislation of 1959, the Commons, in addition to their control over the number of the naval, military and air forces, and the yearly sums to be appropriated for their support, reserve to themselves the power of determining whether a standing army shall be kept in being in time of peace.'
On that basis I should have thought that I might be allowed to continue my speech.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The point the hon. Member makes—that he should be allowed to discuss whether we shall have a standing Army—is valid, but it does not follow that he is right in saying that he should be allowed to discuss whether the standing Army, as it exists, is adequate for its purpose in matters of deployment, size and the tasks which lie before it. The only question affecting the standing Army which we are entitled to discuss is whether the discipline of the Army is properly practised, and not whether there are two, three or four battalions in Hong Kong. Therefore, the general question should be whether we shall have a standing Army at all, and we should not be allowed to go into detail as to whether we need four-and-a-half or five battalions in Hong Kong.

Mr. Wigg: It is obvious that the hon. Member has read neither the Select Committee's Report nor Erskine May He cannot have read the Act, either, because Part I deals with enlistment, and if he says that we cannot talk about the terms of service it is clear that he would be much better employed in reading the Army Act and not troubling the House with his childish, asinine and rather ignorant comments.

Mr. Kershaw: I am sorry to interrupt the eloquent speech of the hon. Member. I rather like his speech. I have now heard it about seven times, and I am looking forward to hearing it again during the Defence debate. My only regret is that when he makes it during the Army debate he usually does so so late that I cannot be here to hear what he says. When I referred to the Act I

should have referred to the Bill which is before us. If the hon. Member knew more about military affairs he would have realised that that was a slip of the tongue on my part.

Mr. Wigg: It is now clear that the hon. Member has not only not read the Act but has not read the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will stop his debate with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw).

Mr. Wigg: Clause 1 of the Bill continues the Army Act, 1955, and the Air Force Act, 1955. Both those Acts are renewed by that Clause. If the hon. Member is bored because, as he says, I have made the same speech seven times, I apologise to him, but I think that what I am saying is true, and I shall go on saying it because it will become more true. It may be much more novel to pick up Polaris as if it is a child's toy and extol its virtues, even if one does not know one end from the other, but I shall go on pointing out that the decision to get rid of National Service was a wrong one, and that the country is now faced with the consequences of that decision.
My argument that the country lies in a position of great danger is underlined by what President Kennedy said this week. We should be idle and irresponsible men if we did not take note of what that man says. He has called for a report on the defence forces of the United States, which are incomparably greater than ours, and he wants that report in a matter of days, whereas we are ambling on with another White Paper which merely spends another £1,600 million.
When I was interrupted I was about to deal with the situation in Malaya. At present we have five major units there. One hon. Member opposite raised the question of the Secretary of State's denial that some of these units are to be moved. He said that he did not quite know whether Malaya was in the Far East. At any rate, he welcomed the denial of his right hon. Friend. I was very interested in that denial, and I was also interested to see the Minister's face and the shaking of his head when he disagreed with the hon. Member's remarks.
The report that the Malayan military force was to be cut by a number of


major units—and I suggest that the number is three—was first mentioned in The Times on 9th January. It appeared in no other newspaper except the Daily Telegraph. I spent 2s. 1d. in buying all the editions of the Daily Telegraph for that day, because I was sure that it had pinched the item from The Times. I found that it appeared only in the later editions of the Daily Telegraph, and had obviously been borrowed from The Times. On 17th January there was a report that the Secretary of State for War had said that that Press comment was pure speculation. Then, on 30th January, under the heading, "Role of the W.R.A.C. may be enlarged", he said that the Army Council had this under review, referring to the Far East
but reductions in the Far East that I have seen mooted do not exist".
It would be out of order—it would be very wrong in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman—to say that he was not telling the truth. But if he is telling the truth, he does not know what is going on in his own Department. Events again will show. There are proposals afoot not only to cut down the garrison in Malaya to three units but to make cuts in Africa as well. It is clear, of course. that the Government have not 55,000 men in Germany. They are committed to seven brigade groups, and the pretext is that we are honouring our treaty obligations. Our treaty obligations are four divisions and the Second Tactical Air Force. They were cut down by successive stages to 45,000. The present Minister for Commonwealth Relations had to go back on that and had to claim that he had 55,000 when in actual fact there were 13 regiments of armour. 20 battalions of infantry in N.A.T.O. and three battalions in Berlin which are outside N.A.T.O.
We have been told from both Front Benches that the one thing we must do is to stand by N.A.T.O., and when from time to time some of us this side of the House have suggested that all was not well it was regarded as an attack. Yet what happens? I will not weary the House, or strain your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by quoting again at length from President Kennedy. But he says that our aliances are in disarray. He says that they must be re-examined, and of course they must. At the present

time the Germans are getting on to their eighth and ninth divisions—not very high quality troops; they are only—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but I think he is going far beyond the scope of the debate.

Mr. Wigg: Again, if I may point it out with respect, the safety of our troops in Germany depends on the actual treaty, the functions that they carry out, and if they are left there with nothing on either side of them, inadequately organised and trained—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the safety of our troops in Germany. That would be an appropriate subject for a defence debate.

Mr. Wigg: We are discussing the terms of enlistment. The Government have gone back on National Service and have failed to raise sufficient numbers. They are supposed to have a nominal 55,000 troops in Germany when there is not that number, and—this is the point—they have no services. The Germans are providing services, and it is because of this that, for example, when our foreign Secretary engages in discussions at N.A.T.O. or with other foreign countries about the organisation of our forces, he has to argue for a short war because we could not fight a long one. This is the fact, we are without the essential services—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think this argument would be more appropriate in a defence debate.

Mr. Wigg: Again, with respect, my point is that what the House and the country have to face is that the situation on the Rhine is in disarray. We have such an enormous bill, such a tremendous drain on our manpower, that we in this country are placed in a position of great peril. I think this a state of affairs which cannot continue indefinitely.
Here, again, I address a special warning to my hon. Friends, that in actual fact the policy of disarmament in this country having gone so far and so fast, and having in the first instance been a policy of unilateral disarmament, not conventional—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that this is going far beyond the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, again may I say that I have not talked about the Navy, I have not talked about the Naval Discipline Act at all, and I should have thought that so long as I addressed—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not talked about the Army Act at all, either.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, I have talked of the Army Act all the way through, and I have talked about the first part of that Act, because the first part of the Army Act is concerned with enlistment, it is concerned with the raising of the Forces. And if the proposals of the Government are so inadequate as not to produce the men necessary, it is my argument and my assertion that those terms of service ought to be altered.
The only point I want to make in this section of my speech is to indicate that the situation existing in N.A.T.O. will not continue indefinitely. President Kennedy also is concerned about the safety of his troops, and the Germans are going to be concerned about theirs. The only country—notice—the only country that at the present moment is insisting or is forced to organise in the way we have done, is ourselves.
We are forced to have an atomic deterrent because we cannot do anything else. Ultimately when President Kennedy counts the score, and the Germans count the score, the situation will be resolved to our disadvantage. I think we are a stabilising factor in Europe, but only on one condition: only on the condition that we honour our commitments. If hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House think that merely by passing a Defence White Paper, with its expenditure of £15,000 million since 1951, we are blurring over what are the consequences—if they imagine that merely by sending this Bill to a Committee they have resolved the defence problems of this country, I believe that they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I do not wish to weary the House any longer. I apologise to the hon. Member for Stroud for having said this seven times. If it is only seven times I have not been very diligent, because I have been trying to do so ever since I came

into this House. There is one thing I will not do, at whatever cost to myself—I will not play politics with other men's lives, and I have said that before. I will not, for the simple reason that at various times in my life I have been on the receiving end. I have seen what it has meant. We ought to declare where we stand on this.
I hold the view that this country cannot discharge its obligations either in the Commonwealth field or to N.A.T.O. nor can it hold up its head or demonstrate its will to defend itself—it cannot even be a Switzerland or a Sweden—unless it does demonstrate its will, and that to my mind means some form of National Service. I want to say that if the Government introduce a Measure for selective service, I should leave the Labour Party and vote for it. That is my view on that, and I will not play politics with it.
A country which is in a weak position is like a poor man, it has to pay its insurance policy premiums promptly and in advance. It may be interesting for hon. Gentlemen to say that they hope National Service does not come back. But the Soviet Union is not saying that. I cannot follow the multilateral argument which says that so long as Russia has the hydrogen bomb, and so long as the Russians have atomic weapons, we must have them too. What about the argument regarding enlistment? The Soviet Union has National Service and keeps 22 conventional divisions in Europe. What about that argument? We do not face that, and of course, as a matter of fact, it is very convenient to hide behind this multilateral argument. I protest—even if it be for the seventh, the seventieth or the seven-hundredth time. I protest that the defences of this country have been used as a plaything in the battle for personal power. I do not know who wins, but I know who will lose, and that ultimately it can only be Britain.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I am sure that the whole House will always wish to pay tribute to the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) holds his views and the pertinacity with which he puts them forward. I take the opportunity of doing so myself be. cause I know how undoubtedly sincerely


he holds them, but I think that he ought to continue to make that kind of speech, because the next eighteen months will be a "field day" for him to do so. That period will be while National Service is running out and before we get the full value from Regular service.
If, in eighteen months from now, the position has been restored, I know that the hon. Member, to whom the welfare of the Army is so dear, will be willing to "eat his hat".

Mr. Wigg: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kershaw: Also, while that period goes on we are entitled to ask how big an Army he would like, what it would cost, and what good any sized Army completely without atomic weapons, would be? Those are the questions to which to address our minds. According to the different answers we give, we shall find ourselves supporting or not supporting the lion. Member's thesis.
I turn from that argument because I feel that I could not skate so delicately over the thin ice as he could, and I turn to more humdrum matters. I see that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has left the Chamber, but I wish to refer to his remarks about the legal service and the way in which barristers are sent to B.A.O.R. to defend soldiers at courts-martial. When I did that sort of thing some years ago—I have no interest to declare in it now—I was paid ten guineas a day, plus my ticket. Whether or not that would qualify me in the estimation of the hon. Member for Aberavon as a distinguished member of the profession, or just a member of the profession, I do not know, but that is what the payment was.
I very much doubt whether public money involved in sending solicitors as well as barristers would be justified. Most courts-martial are largely dealing with questions of fact and questions of law seldom arise. To have two men paid on that scale, with journey money paid as well, would be an unreasonable public expense. Members of the Bar have often wondered exactly what purpose solicitors serve in those circumstances. It is possible, in the case of courts-martial, to go direct to one's client and get on with the job fairly easily. Two men are not

needed. It is a matter for discussion when court-martial cases go to appeal—as they can do now, although they seldom do—whether or not it is necessary to have solicitors as well as barristers engaged at public expense. Presumably, in that situation there is a point of real substance which ought to be gone into carefully. That differs in no way from ordinary civilians in the courts.
Secondly, I want to ask for a slightly further explanation, if possible, by my right hon. Friend about Clause 35 of the Bill. I did not quite understand from him what was the purpose of altering the terms of enlistment of officers and non-commissioned officers in the forces of Protectorates and present Colonial Powers. If it in any way makes more difficult the raising of forces of the British Army from sources of recruitment outside this country, I should regret it. It might be a retrograde step. If, however, it is designed in some way to enhance the efficiency and local patriotism of some forces already in existence, I have nothing further to say about it.
I apologise that public duty may take me away from the House when the questions I have put are answered, but I hope that an answer can be given.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Although my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) impinged upon matters which seem more appropriate to a defence debate, nevertheless he succeeded in transforming the nature of this debate. He imparted a sense of reality into our discussions.
We ought to be asking ourselves: what is the purpose of such a debate? We should not only be asking that question ourselves, but expecting the country to ask it. We are considering whether this country should have a standing Army. I should have thought that was a matter of vital interest. There are some people who ask, "Why have an Army at all?", but the majority of us disagree with that concept. Note what has happened. We are discussing a matter of vital importance in a comparatively empty assembly.
In this morning's Daily Telegraph there appeared a report of a private meeting which took place last night in this House. I can refer to it because it was reported in the Press. There are fewer people in


this assembly this afternoon considering whether we should have a standing Army than were present at the Defence Committee meeting of the Labour Party last night, which was not considering defence, but a quite different subject. I regard that situation as exceedingly disturbing.
Of course, if we proceed on the assumption that it matters very little indeed whether we have an Army or not, what is to be the size of the Army, its nature, its purpose and primary objective, that is another matter, but, if we claim to be interested in this topic, we ought at least to give it our undivided attention.
However few are the hon. Members on this side of the House, hon. Members supporting the Government have little to brag about.

Mr. Kershaw: The right hon. Member will know that there is a very important meeting connected with this side of the House going on upstairs and that it is usual for that to happen at this time on Thursdays.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Shinwell: I hesitate to comment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but with great respect, most of the hon. Members who have come in are outside the Bar of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It does not matter so long as they are in my sight.

Mr. Shinwell: I accept your decision, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
It is an amazing situation when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has to demand that a quorum should be present to continue a debate of such an important character. It may very well have been that the House was comparatively empty because I managed to catch your eye. That could happen, but I am not alone in that respect. Other hon. Members, and even right hon. Gentlemen, have had to address a House which was so empty that one could detect the echo without any difficulty.
The debate is undoubtedly overshadowed by three factors which have emerged in the course of our discussions.
The first is the size of the Armed Forces. The second is the wastage. The Secretary of State dealt with that subject very fully. The third is the commitments imposed on the Army. These are the overriding factors with which we are concerned in the debate.
All hon. Members who heard the Secretary of State must have been surprised when he informed us about the wastage due to purchase from the Army during the first three months after enlistment. The figure was about 10 per cent. That is an astonishing percentage. I do not doubt that it has varied in the last few years until it has now reached the stage when, while more men are enlisting than leaving, taking it all in all, with wastage due to purchase and wastage due to other factors, there must be almost as many men leaving the Army as going into it. That is a serious situation.
Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, we must consider, in this connection, whether we want conventional forces at all, or whether we are satisfied that the number of our conventional forces is bound to remain inadequate, and, therefore, incapable of meeting their obligations, and that we must transfer our affections to the nuclear weapon. That is the problem which faces us. We cannot escape from it.
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, but I profoundly disagree with him about the need to return to National Service. Politically, it would be a disaster. Technically, I am not satisfied that it would serve the best interests of the Army. It was well known to my hon. Friend and myself when we were associated together at the War Office and at the Ministry of Defence that it requires a vast number of highly trained Regulars to train National Service men. Regulars are undoubtedly required to train Regular recruits, but far more are required when National Service is in existence. Therefore, both politically and technically it would be a mistake to revert to National Service.
My hon. Friend said that in the event of a scheme being formulated for reverting to National Service, not necessarily the normal method of National Service, but a method akin to it, he would


support it even if it meant disaffiliating himself from his present political connections. I doubt whether he will be called upon to do that. If he is called upon to do it, I hope that he will change his mind.

Mr. Wigg: That is a point of difference between us. If my right hon. Friend holds the view he does, which is shared by the Government and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends, he has now to say where he would cut. Would he cut in the Rhine? What commitments would he cut?

Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely what I propose to do. What I have been indulging in is in the nature of a digression in order to come to the point of real substance. That is whether the number of men now in the Army is capable of meeting our normal commitments. If our commitments were of a normal character and some acute emergency developed, there would be a change in the situation immediately. We should no doubt have either to revert to National Service, or rely exclusively on the use of the nuclear weapon in association with our allies. That is not the situation in which we find ourselves today. We have commitments in Malaya and other parts of the Far East—for example, Hong Kong—on the Rhine and in various other parts of the world.
We must consider where we can best withdraw our forces without losing the capacity to meet our commitments. I will explain what I mean. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was right in the point he made about Germany. He has always been right about this ever since we began to debate this question. We have never been able to meet the full commitment of four divisions in Germany. We have never been able to provide the necessary battalions at full strength. That has been said over and over again in Army and defence debates.
The reason was that we had not sufficient men even when there was National Service, because they were employed in various parts of the world. Large numbers of National Service men were performing tasks of a menial and useless character. The useless tasks could have been undertaken by civilians if the Army had cared to employ them, as it is now doing to a greater extent than heretofore.
We must consider what we have to do with our forces in various parts of the world. I would not withdraw the troops in Malaya. I consider that that is a vulnerable spot, a focal point of danger. There is some advantage in retaining the troops in Malaya. I should withdraw a large number of our forces from Germany.
There are several reasons why I believe that to be desirable. First, it is suggested now that German forces should be trained in this country, presumably because there are insufficient training areas in Germany. Rather than bring German troops here to train in this country, an idea which is anathema to many of us and which is also unnecessary, it would be more advisable to bring some of our troops back from Germany and train them in this country. We could thus make available the areas where our troops are now training in Germany for the use of the German forces if they so desired. That is one reason for my belief that we should withdraw some of our forces.
There is another reason. Never at any time—and I make this affirmation, and challenge contradiction—since N.A.T.O. was first formed have the other countries in Europe made the contribution to the forces in the West, under the control of the Supreme Commander, that they promised to make. That applies to France, it applies to Belgium, to Holland, to Norway, and to the others. I say that to show that we have made our contribution, and that if we should now withdraw some of our forces from Germany for the purposes I have indicated—and for several other purposes that I have in mind which, I am sure, are well known to the War Office and the Air Ministry—it would be because the other countries that made those promises have never kept them.
That being so, we are entitled to withdraw some of our forces. After all, if we have the aircraft that are necessary—and that is a matter for the Government to consider, if they have not considered it already—to provide the essential mobility for the transport of the forces, we can take them, as necessary, to danger spots if those danger spots should emerge at any time. That may seem slightly out of order in this debate.
as it may have been in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, but let it not be forgotten that President Kennedy, the other day, referred to the need to step up the number of transport aircraft to take troops to danger spots.
I therefore suggest that as the Army is not likely to reach its target, and that, even if it did reach its target, would be incapable of meeting all its commitments, we should withdraw some of our forces from West Germany and return them to this country. If that were done, we would not require the numbers that some people think are essential to meet our commitments. It may be said that even though we bring them back here we shall still require them, but let us not forget that they can be serviced more easily in this country, without supporting forces, than they can in Germany and, more particularly, without the civilian support that is necessary there.
In my view, we want a standing Army more and more to counter the need for nuclear forces. At any rate, we need to make a contribution of a conventional character to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, if necessary, or to some other form of alliance—I care not what it is. But, in parenthesis, I must say that the more I see of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the weaker it seems to be, and I am not at all sure that in the course of the next few years we shall have that Organisation at all. Perhaps, in part, M. Spaak is resigning because he is beginning to realise how weak the Organisation is.
I want to turn for a moment to some more mundane matters. Some weeks ago I received a letter from a soldier in Germany, who made several complaints about the conditions in his battalion. I sent, not the letter itself but its contents to the Secretary of State for War—I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not now present, but no doubt the Secretary of State for Air will inform him of what I say. I received a rather curious reply. The right hon. Gentleman said that, ordinarily, he would not give any consideration to an anonymous letter. I would have replied to him, but he had gone to the Far East and I missed the opportunity.
That attitude undoubtedly militates against recruitment. There is no reason at all why the War Office or the Air

Ministry should not deal with anonymous letters. We always did when I was in office. If an anonymous letter was sent to the War Office, or came through a Member of Parliament, the circumstances were always inquired into as fully as possible. I hope that when the right hon. Gentlemen concerned receive anonymous letters they will ascertain whether the facts are as set out in the correspondence.
One subject that has not so far emerged from this debate is the position of the remaining National Service men in the forces. Some years ago we dealt with the remuneration of the National Service man as compared with that of the Regular soldier. We decided then that there should be a differentiation. I think that in the then circumstances that was a wise decision, because the idea was to provide an incentive for National Service men to become Regular soldiers. Whether or not it succeeded, is beside the point.
The situation is now different. There are fewer National Service men, and I can see no reason why, in the final months of their service, there should be that differentiation in pay—and, if it enters into the matter—of conditions as between those men and the Regulars—

Mr. Wigg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not like to get out of order—and he knows how anxious I am that the debate should take a regular form. As pay is controlled by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative I should have thought that the one thing that we could not discuss in this debate was pay.

Mr. Shinwell: I think that this is a case of Satan reproving sin. Not only in my view, but in the view of the Chair and of other hon. Members, my hon. Friend's speech was 75 per cent. out of order. When, for the first time, I seem to transgress, he raises an objection. I feel that there is no substance in his objection and, even if there were, I prefer to await the decision of the Chair.
As I was saying, the Government might consider whether it might not be desirable, in the final months of National Service, to step up the remuneration of the remaining National Service men. It would be a very fine gesture and, in view of all the laurels that have been placed upon their brows, they are entitled to some consideration.
We must have a standing Army. We have to build up our conventional forces, and those forces should be adequate and well equipped. We should not stretch them too far by impossible commitments. I suggest that we might begin by withdrawing some of our forces from Germany, thereby giving the German forces the opportunity to train in their own country—which, no doubt, they would prefer to coming to the United Kingdom. We should train our own troops in the United Kingdom, while providing, at the same time, or as soon as may be, the necessary transport to enable them to be sent to any part of Europe or elsewhere to deal with what might be called normal emergencies. If that suggestion were adopted, I think that it would be a very wise step.
Obviously, we shall have to debate these matters all over again, not merely in the context of the Army and the Air Force but in the context of the Government's defence policy, which, in my judgment, for many years past, has been very expensive, but not of very great value.

Mr. Speaker: I am calling the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to move his Amendment if he so desires.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is a pleasant surprise, Sir.
I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
I do move this Amendment because my objections to the Bill are, perhaps, more fundamental than some of the other arguments which have been put forward in the debate. I do not want to see the Army Act continued. I believe that if there were any substantial measure of support for this Amendment the Government would be forced to realise the profound discontent that there is in the country over the whole question of the expenditure on the Army, Navy and Air Force. The Navy is excluded from this debate and I do not wish to follow the example of the honourable, gallant—and missing—admiral, the hon. Member for Croydon., North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) who tried to bring in the question of the Navy.
We have had very definite admissions from the Front Bench that there is wastage and that there is an inquiry to be set up to consider causes of wastage; why people do not enlist, why people are enticed into the Army and, after three months, disappear. All this is a confession from the Army and Navy Ministers that there is wastage. I suggest that if there is wastage it is the business of the House of Commons to probe it and to get the Government to alter their policy. The Government ask for a very large sum. Last year's Army Estimates, for example, increased—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman reminds me, perhaps on the Army Estimates he might be in order in discussing that topic, but it is very difficult to do so on this Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I am discussing the question of wastage in the Army and I respectfully suggest that if there is a wastage in the Army there should be some room for economy in the very large sum we grant every year. I am not going into the details of the Army Estimates except to say that in these two Estimates we are discussing today, which affect this Bill vitally, there is a total expenditure—

Mr. Speaker: That really is wrong. We are not discussing any Estimates; we are discussing the Army and Air Force Bill. I do not think the actual figures of the cost of it all, prima facie, are in order. I will hear the hon. Member about it, if he wishes.

Mr. Hughes: I will have to postpone these arguments until the Estimates come to be considered.
It has been announced as a part of Government policy that there is a definite wastage in recruiting. In an article in The Times of 13th January, 1961, there are some interesting statements about the amount of this wastage in recruiting. That is the problem with which the Government are concerned. The article begins by stating that the position which has been illustrated by the Minister today is mush more serious than the Government has indicated.
The Minister said that the wastage in recruiting is in the nature of 10 per cent. but The Times, in its article, says:
It will come as a shock to many people to learn that about one-fifth of the recruits


who join the Army as volunteers direct from civil life are back home again within three months of enlisting.
If that is the situation—if all the enormous expenditure on recruiting results in people being attracted into the Army and then having to leave it three months afterwards—it constitutes a very considerable wastage in manpower.
In spite of the very attractive literature sent out by these Departments, which has absolutely no relevance to the military situation of today, the Government are failing to get their recruits. The Government have abandoned National Service and are now in this dilemma. They are to ask a Select Committee to meet to find out the causes of wastages in manpower. Surely it is a wastage of manpower if you have an enormous publicity and advertising campaign and attract men into the Army and the Air Force and, three months afterwards, they buy their discharge and go out of the Army.
I commend to the Minister the article in The Times on the problem with which he is faced. It put some very interesting aspects of the whole question of recruiting. It points out, for example, that much of the wastage is due to the inevitable outcome of the Government's quantitative approach to Army recruiting by measures such as television advertising. It is quite clear that the Government spend a considerable amount of money on television programmes to attract people into the Army and that when the recruits have been attracted into the Army they have found that they have been imposed upon and have been deluded into it by fraud.
The Times makes what seems to me to be a very interesting statement. It asks about training in the Army and goes on to say:
The present tempo is geared to the production of the trained National Service men, who, being a true cross-section of the nation, are of higher average intelligence than the average regular recruit.
To me, that is a remarkable statement. The people who are attracted into the Regular Army are of a lower average intelligence than the people who do not go into the Army. If that is so, the personnel of our Armed Forces is composed of people who are of a less normal intelligence than the people who,

I believe, have the sense to keep out of them.
This is a rather strange state of affairs. The Times goes on to say that the remedy for this is to be found in the attitude to recruits and suggests that recruits find that they are bullied in the Army by the non-commissioned officers. A very curious and novel discovery. I understand that that has been going on for the last 300 years. The Times says that
The recruit will quickly become bored if he is mainly confined to the barrack square. Let him shoot with his rifle, however inexpert he is, and get out into the country on exercises, however chaotic, so that his interest is engaged.
That is a very strange remedy, that recruits ought to do something—that they ought to shoot although the shooting is not to much purpose and they ought to do exercises which are irrelevant to modern war.
I come now to the question about enlistment. Why do not young people enlist? Why is it that only 3 per cent. of National Service men go back into the Army? I submit that the reason is that we are an intelligent democracy and that our people are more interested in what an Army is needed for in the world. They say to themselves that they will not go into the Army because, from the point of view of serving any useful purpose, a life in the Army is not an occupation into which they ever wish to be induced.
We cannot blame the young people if they do not roll up to the recruiting offices to swell the ranks of the Army when they discover that, even in the House of Commons, the Members do not turn up. I had to call attention to the fact that, when an ex-Minister of Defence was speaking, the Chamber was almost empty. When young people who are expected to join the Army, and give their lives to it for twenty years, read in the newspapers tomorrow that only a dozen or so Members of Parliament were here for this debate, what encouragement will that be?
I am not enthusiastic about a standing Army at all. What is the attitude of the young person to whom the Minister makes his appeal? The average young person of today is not the old illiterate, not the old soldier, of pre-war days. He listens to the radio and he looks at television. Naturally, he asks himself,


If I am to go into the Army, what shall I be in the Army for, and what am I going to fight for?". Then, for instance, he considers the discussion which is going on in the Labour Party, and he finds that there is great confusion in the Labour Party. He says to himself, "If there is all this talk about unilateral disarmament and multilateral disarmament, why should I go into the Army?". It is a perfectly relevant question to ask.
When he turns away from the Labour Party, he may look, for example, at the writings of a distinguished military man like Lord Montgomery. I read Lord Montgomery's articles with very great care and, I am surprised to find, with a great deal of agreement. I read in last Sunday's Sunday Times what Lord
Montgomery had to say about the military situation. He makes statements there which will not entice anybody into the Army for twenty years of his life. Lord Montgomery is not nearly so enthusiastic about N.A.T.O. as my right hon. and hon. Friends who speak from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry, but my duties do not allow me to permit the hon. Member to continue in this fashion. The Act deals with enlistment and terms of service. These moral or literary considerations which might influence recruits seem to be very far from the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: They are not moral reasons, Sir, but are reasons affecting the young man in Sandhurst or at Eton, perhaps, who is thinking of a military career. He would, naturally, look for advice to Lord Montgomery. He would ask, "If I am going into the Army, who am I to fight?". Lord Montgomery poses this question, which is. after all, a very important one. It is important, if one is in the Army, to know whom one is to fight. It is generally assumed in the organisation of the Army, and it has been assumed in the speeches made in the debate today, that the Army and Air Force are needed to fight the Russians.
Lord Montgomery does not think it is necessary to fight the Russians at all. He says that the Russians do not want to fight and do not want an aggressive

war, and neither do the Chinese. Naturally, anyone reading these statements is not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The difficulty is that Lord Montgomery was not confined by the rules of order. The hon. Member is. It really does make a difference. I must ask him to address his mind to the issues arising in the debate on the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I do not know whether Lord Montgomery will be asked to give evidence before the committee on wastage of manpower, or how to get recruits into the Army. I suggest that when this committee is set up it might ask Lord Montgomery to give his views on the position. I am quite prepared to give my limited experience to the committee. I know the reason why the Minister is not finding his recruits. The younger generation is completely sick and tired of the futility of modern war, and he will not get his recruits.
It may be said that the right hon. Gentleman will get them only by conscription. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said that we must stay in N.A.T.O. I do not see how they will get the troops to swell the N.A.T.O. armies. Conscription will not bring in the soldiers, because neither of the political parties dares go to the country and say that conscription must be imposed, and neither will the policy now being followed by the Government produce the necessary recruits.
I suggest that this committee which is to be set up by the Government, if it is to do its job thoroughly, will have to go into the deeper reasons why people are not enlisting and why there is so much waste of manpower and money. At a time when we are asked to cut the Health Service, I suggest that we should devote some attention to the enormous wastage of £1,000 million on these Estimates, which are quite unjustified.

Mr. Speaker: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that we may not discuss the Estimates now. It is out of order.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. R H. S. Crossman: In addressing myself to the Amendment and the Bill before the House, I think it worth while to call


attention to the fact that I am, I think, the third Member in succession to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, because of the extraordinary deficiency on the Government benches. It is a remarkable fact that, during a debate on the Army and Air Force Bill, a Bill of considerable importance affecting our defences, there should be this absence, which we were told, three-quarters of an hour ago, was excused by activities elsewhere, but which can be explained now only by lack of interest.
The debate has been extremely important and we who have sought to take part have been right, for two reasons: first, the importance of the subject itself; and, secondly, the importance of this particular debate for the House of Commons. I think that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that in the old days we had each year on the Army Act a chance, with unrestricted time, to discuss enlistment and training in the Army. That was a right which the House had under the old procedure.
It was not the intention of the Select Committee, when it put forward the improved procedure, to deny the House the same kind of debate on the general structure, function and enlistment of the Armed Forces in relation to our standing Army. It was important that we should have a debate which justified itself in terms of the importance of the subject—which did not confine itself exclusively to the important amendments the Government want, but which dealt with the Bill itself and the function of our standing Army.
I want to make some remarks on the function of the standing Army and the reasons for the enlistment of soldiers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) have pointed out, even ten years ago it was much easier to define the justification for the British standing Army than it is today. Ten years ago, when the Labour Government were about to leave office, no one could question what was the function of the Army. It had a dual function. It provided the cadres of Regulars, and these Regulars' second task was to train our National Service men, for then we believed in a large Army. In addition to the standing

Army, we believed that we should have National Service. The Army was the defence of this country.
The strategy imposed by the Government has substantially destroyed the old justification for a standing Army. First, the abolition of conscription—I shall not discuss the merits of it now—knocked out half of the function ten years ago, which was to train. That was an essential function now destroyed by the abolition of conscription.
The second function was to provide sufficient troops suitably trained and equipped for our overseas commitments, not only in, but outside, Europe. No one has been able to pretend in this debate that the second function is in any way adequately performed by our standing Army today.
I now turn to Europe. In Europe, the functions of the Army, as we understood it, the justification for the standing Army, has been largely destroyed by the new theory of substituting a deterrent force for a defence force. In the Sandys doctrine of thermo-nuclear strategy, the only function of the Army is to guard the bases from which the nuclear weapons are sent—to stand around the launching pads and to make sure that they are safe. Every other function, which has been previously that of a defence force, has been absorbed into the simple concept of the deterrent.
Many of us pointed out the dangers of this destruction of the Army. In debate after debate, a few of us on this side predicted that if we undermined the Army in this way we would not achieve any defence at all. I think that we have been largely justified, because during the last three or four years the whole theory that we could substitute deterrence for soldiers has been abandoned even by the Government. The Sandys strategy relied on the thermo-nuclear deterrent plus "streamlined nuclear forces". I remember that phrase. In White Paper after White Paper it was said that we were not to have an old fashioned Army, Navy or Air Force any more. We were to have "streamlined nuclear forces". Alas, we did not own these new weapons. What we were doing was getting rid of the soldiers and our conventional equipment and our armed strength before these nuclear weapons had appeared or been actualised.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley pointed out, we have had, since 1954, a period of unprecedented unilateral conventional disarmament—the virtual destruction of the standing Army as we had known it before. Then, after three years, when this was seen to be nonsensical, we had a new theory which no longer relied on the thermonuclear deterrent. It declared that we should substitute for the conventional soldier, conventionally trained and armed with conventional fire power, an atomic tactical weapon which would take his place on the battlefield.
Instead of having so many battalions, divisions, or ground troops, we would dispense with what were called the mass armies of the past and would substitute for them these weapons. In this way we would produce as much destructive power through the presence of those weapons on the battlefield as was produced by whole divisions of old-fashioned troops. That was the famous theory of atomic tactical weapons.
For a long time we on this side, and, in particular, those below the Gangway, were able to attack the Government on the ground that the tactical weapons were not in existence and that it was a very dangerous thing to introduce a strategy which relied on them before we had them. But this year they are just coming into existence. They are beginning to be present in Western Europe. I should like to ask two specific questions of the Secretary of State for Air about this attempt to substitute tactical atomic weapons for ground forces. Is it a fact that they are now below divisional level in the British Army of the Rhine, right forward?
Secondly, is it a fact that the Russians have not done this? Is it a fact that the Russians have kept their nuclear weapons well back whereas we have put ours well forward as a substitute for adequate conventional forces? If so, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Air whether he regards this as a wise method of defence? Is it not time that we recognised that the only sane thing that we can do is to go back to the idea that we should rely on conventional forces forward; and that, if we have to have these weapons, they should be as far back as possible? They should be

pushed right out of Europe if possible, but in any case, they should be taken right back and we should rely on the old-fashioned function of the Army which is to provide our main defence line.
I turn to another point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington raised. It is true—and I agree with my right hon. Friend—that once conscription has been abolished in peacetime, it cannot be brought back. Nobody is stupid enough 10 think that that can be done. But I agree with him. Once we have abolished conscription, and thereby fundamentally changed the function of the Army, we have to face the consequences. It does not seem to me that in this debate the Government are prepared to face the conseequences. My right hon. Friend has made a practical suggestion to them. He says that since we have fundamentally destroyed our Army, let us face the fact that we can no longer carry out the commitments to which we are solemnly pledged.
I remind my right hon. Friend that, before one accepts his view that one can solve this Army problem by withdrawing roost of our troops from Germany, it is as well to remember that the only reason why our allies, the French, agreed to the rearmament of the Germans was a solemn pledge that we would keep four divisions in Germany. At the time, some of us pointed out that this was a tremendous obligation and that it would require the maintenance of larger standing forces than this country liked. Some of us said, "For goodness' sake, do not go in for commitments if you are going to 'rat' on them in a few years' time. Then it is better not to undertake them." But it seems to me a serious thing for this country that, only a few years after this undertaking, we should go back on it. I can appreciate it if my right hon. Friend says that we should train these men in England but that they should be allocated to the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Shinwell: At the time that the French agreed to the rearmament of Germany as the United Kingdom also did, the French Government promised a substantial contribution to N.A.T.O. in the form of troops, but that promise was never implemented.

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the best way to maintain an alliance is to say that, because someone else has not fulfilled his obligation, we have the right not to fulfil ours.
May I remind my right hon. Friend that, although he is right about the first case, I was referring to a more important moment, the moment when the final treaty was signed, when West Germany was established as an independent country as an ally of ours when we ratified the German Army as distinct from the European Army. That was when Sir Anthony Eden solemnly pledged four divisions. Without them the French Government would never have consented to the creation of a West German state with an independent Army.
And that is why our single most important commitment is to maintain our full contribution in Western Europe. Here I come back to the central issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. If we are to maintain that commitment, we must be realistic about it and maintain it adequately. It is agreed that it is no maintenance of our commitment to substitute or to believe that we can substitute atomic tactical weapons for our troops, for the simple reason that the Russians have them, too and, therefore, they cancel out. We have to build up the same level in conventional weapons as well.
If that is true, we come back to this thought, that our Army is designed for two functions. One is to play its rôle in N.A.T.O., and the second is to carry out our large overseas commitments of a strictly British character—our commitments in the Middle East, in Africa, in the Far East, in Malaya and Hong Kong.
Does anyone seriously contend that the Army we are to get, a professional volunteer Army, of 165,000 or 180,000 men, can possibly carry out our contribution—four divisions in N.A.T.O. and our full contribution in Malaya, and Hong Kong, and to be ready if a crisis were to come in Rhodesia or Kenya? Does anyone believe that if there were a crisis in the Persian Gulf as well, we could deal with it?
Already it is a fact that only one major incident abroad would require something tantamount to general mobilisation to get our reinforcements there. This was a fact at the time of Suez, and

it is a fact now. One major incident would require something approaching general mobilisation, owing to the weakness of our standing Army. Consider what this country has done in making itself dependent on nuclear weapons, although all the commitments our Army is likely to be engaged in are such that they could never be used. Who can tell me that our nuclear Air Force will be of great assistance in Rhodesia, in Kenya or the Persian Gulf, or in Malaya or in Hong Kong, or anywhere else? Then you see the full futility of this so-called policy of "streamlined nuclear forces". It is a delusion and a dream, for the sake of which a fine Army was almost totally destroyed.
Those are the things that we want to put to the Government on this important Bill. I am very glad that on this first debate on the Bill we have been able to put these views to the Government in the most serious possible way, and use the debate in the way in which it should be used as a serious consideration of the function and structure of the Army.
Basically, there is a tremendous dilemma. Either the extra manpower has to be found or our commitments have to be cut. That is not the job of the Opposition. It is the job of the Government. It is the duty of the Opposition to put this up to the Government, to say, "You made these decisions; you canned conscription and destroyed the Regular Army, substituting for it atomic weapons. You have taken all these decisions, you have got us into this jam and now you must make up your minds. Because the one criminal thing to do is not to make up your minds, but to float along with the commitments but without the ability to carry them out."
Nothing is more dangerous in politics than to undertake to maintain commitments without the strength to do so. If it is impossible to get the manpower, we must trim our commitments to our actual strength. As a Socialist, I believe that it is unrealistic that the British should ever again fight an action in the Far East. I think that it is unrealistic to think that if 'trouble came there, our friends the New Zealanders would not rely on America rather than on us. It is a delusion of grandeur to maintain such strength east of India. But we do have genuine commitments in the Middle


East and in Africa, and they already exceed our strength. Even that limited group which no one would be prepared to jeopardise, in addition to N.A.T.O., Even our vital interests in the Persian Gulf and in Africa today far exceed the strength that we are likely to get in the next three or four years.
We are using the debate today 'to make an initial attack on the Government to centre attention on the weakness of the Army and on our appalling dependence on tactical nuclear weapons. In particular, we call attention to the fact that if the tactical nuclear weapons are, as the Secretary of State for Air will not deny, right up forward, if the B.A.O.R. is totally dependent on tactical nuclear weapons and cannot fight without them, it is either an impotent Army or a perilous Army, or both.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has made a characteristic, thoughtful and challenging contribution to our debate. I shall perhaps refer to some of the points he made a little later in my remarks, but I would first like to underline that he made it very clear that his points were matters for the Government to answer and that, unlike those of some of his hon. Friends and my hon. Friends, they were not wholly directed to the Front Opposition Bench.
I think there is broad agreement in the House that the procedure under which the Army Act and the Air Force Act were enacted in 1955 was extremely satisfactory. There is agreement that we should follow that procedure and, as I understand the assurance of the Secretary of State for War, we shall have the advantage of a departmental or technical committee. I did not myself serve on the Select Committee in the years before 1955, but I understand that all the Members of that Committee thought that this procedure was extremely good.
While it may be that at the present time, because of the excellence of the work done in 1955, it is not necessary to have quite the far-reaching consideration of the problems that we had then, it would be wise to preserve for the future the precedent that, when we come to look at the Army and the Air Force Act in this way, there should be

the same procedure as in 1955. I was rather sorry to learn from my hon. Friend the Member far Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that he did not anticipate that he would serve on the Select Committee. It is not, of course, a matter for me to nominate members of the Committee, but I was rather distressed that he felt that he would not be available, because I make so bold as to say that no other hon. Member has done more than he has done over the last fifteen years to bring to the Floor of the House of Commons matters concerned with the welfare and conditions of our Service men.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in opening the debate was batting on a rather narrow wicket. he did not make a wide case for the maintenance of the standing Army or the Royal Air Force. While some hon. Members have said that the matters contained in the Bill—and I imagine that they would extend the reference to the subject matter of the Army and Air Force Acts—are trivial and mundane, I do not take that view. It is wholly right that we should discuss on the Floor of the House matters affecting discipline and enlistment and other material issues concerning the services. For that reason, because I feel that the procedure that is devised is a satisfactory one and because the House of Commons should concern itself with these matters, I propose to support the Second Reading of the Bill and not the Amendment.
When the Secretary of State for Air replies, I should like him to give an assurance, which, I hope, the Government will give readily, that now that National Service is coming to an end, there will still be clearly maintained in the Services the right of the individual Service man to come on a point of grievance to his Member of Parliament. The House will recall that it is only in the post-war National Service period that we have had this relationship between the House of Commons and the Services, between the Service man and his Member, which is very desirable. I hope that Ministers who have political responsibility for these great Services will not content themselves with simply issuing a general instruction that all Service men shall have this right, but will see within their Services that this right is made widely known to Service


men and stamp very hard on such intervening officers as attempt to dissuade individual Service men from exercising it.

Mr. Tom Driberg: While entirely agreeing with what my hon. Friend says, I must say to him that this has always been an absolute right and was exercised freely during the war as well as the post-war period.

Mr. Mulley: I was not wishing to suggest that that was never the case, but my experience at the beginning of the war was that a Regular soldier regarded it as a more serious crime to write to his Member of Parliament than almost any other crime listed in the Army Act. I was talking about that attitude of mind rather than the legal position then prevailing.
While we may have different views—not only, unhappily, between the two sides of this House, but sometimes we find differences of opinion on this side on matters of defence policy and strategy—as to how soldiers and airmen should be deployed, we all agree that people in the Services, whether Regular or National Service men, have done, and are doing, a magnificent job.
In approaching the general question of Army and Air Force discipline, we should see as far as we can that the regulations are fitted to the modern Army and the modern Air Force, which are increasingly highly professional and technical forces. One of the problems always is to try to keep the Armed Forces in tune with the society of which they form part. Mr. Correli Barnett, in his otherwise rather controversial book about the Western Desert, has some passages on this theme. His view was that one of the difficulties at the beginning of the war was that the then Armed Forces were completely out of tune with the society from which they came. When considering the Amendments that we should make to the Acts, we should always try to ensure that as far as possible we get the discipline and regulations in tune with the outlook and attitude of our general civilian society. Nobody would suggest that it is possible to run a military force on exactly the same rules and regulations as one organises a civilian force in a factory or in some other wholly peaceful occupation.
I will deal only shortly with the points made by the Minister in introducing the Bill, because, broadly, they are matters for further discussion and consideration in Committee. I should like to say straight away, however, how much we on this side welcome the provision that the Air Force will have the possibility of a twenty-two year engagement and that men can join the force with the object of a full career with a pension in the same way as already exists with the Army.
We shall have to explore in detail the problem of fines. In principle, the idea of introducing a monetary fine is excellent. It attunes to the outlook of society. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is in line with the treatment of motoring offences in a civilian court, where people are fined a sum of money, and why not have a similar procedure in the Army and Air Force, too? I was not clear how this would fit into the gap between the petty offences which lead only to punishment by curtailment of privileges and the more serious offences entailing detention, forfeiture of seniority, and so on.
In reading the Bill, I imagined that the intention might be to get away from the old-fashioned idea of confinement to barracks, people getting up in the morning and running round with packs on their backs, or manual potato peeling in these days of mechanical potato peelers. One reason why it would be a good thing to reduce this kind of petty restriction is because it is unevenly enforced. Being on "jankers", as it was called in the Army, varied very much from place to place and according to the sergeant-major, orderly officer or whoever was in charge of discipline. While it is important that the forces should know the scale and the maximum if monetary fines are instituted, it is equally important to have a uniform procedure, as far as it can be arranged, throughout the Service.
It has been suggested, quite properly and wisely, that the maximum limit of fines should be fourteen days' pay. There should also be the provision, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) spoke, that a man should still have something left in his pocket no matter how big his fine happened to be. In case of the possibility of commanding officers fining people frequently there might also need to be a maximum


in time as well as in amount. I am thinking particularly of boys and apprentices. A commanding officer might find it effective to fine them 5s. for being late on parade and to do it several times a week, but on their low levels of pay these people would have hardly anything left. This would not be an inducement to them to make a full career in the Service.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Abera von was speaking and making clear his view that National Service was a waste of time, we had a well informed speech on Army matters and I could not help thinking that we had another hon. Member in the House who would take an interest on these questions, not only this year, but in the future. Although in other respects my hon. Friend seems to have been unfortunate in his Army career, at least the House of Commons may benefit therefrom.
I agree completely with what was said about the general point of purchasing discharge. The Minister is quite right not to want to restrict further the statutory right of a recruit to buy his discharge within the first three months. It is a very bad principle to try to keep in the Service people who right from the beginning feel that they do not want to stay. My inclination would be at all stages to make discharge in appropriate circumstances easier rather than to keep people in the Forces against their will.
One perhaps can carry that principle rather far, but all of us who have served in the Forces have had the experience of how one disgruntled man in the barrack room or in a platoon or section is able to colour the outlook towards the Service of six or seven other people who perhaps were reasonably content until this one man managed to sow the seeds of discontent. If there is someone like that in the Service it is perhaps better to let him go than to make things difficult for him.
As a point of curiosity rather than of principle, I should like to know why there is provision now for a lance-bombardier to be an effective rank in the Army whilst the Royal Air Force is not coming forward with the same corresponding rank. I understand that the L.A.C. is a craftsman's rank and not really equivalent to the lance-corporal or

bombardier. Is there any reason why not, or is it impracticable or unnecessary for this amendment in the Army Act to be accompanied by a similar provision in the Air Force?
The Government should also realise, as I am sure they do, that the specific proposals in the Bill are not necessarily all the matters that the Select Committee will want covered. I was very impressed by the points made in the debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). I thought, though of course it was not a matter for me, that he was completely in order in his remarks, unlike some other hon. Members who seemed to think that he was straying rather far.
I hope that it will be possible to incorporate these improvements from the Navy Discipline Act into the Army and Air Force Bill. In particular, I think it a matter of principle that if possible, we should provide that a man should not be punished twice for the same offence. Not to do so seems to me to be quite contrary to the spirit of the 1955 Act.
Much has been said in debate about the fact that in examining this problem we cannot escape from the wider problem of the size of the Armed Forces and, in assessing the size, from the problem of the purpose for which they should exist. I regret that the Secretary of State for War did not give us a little more information about the state of Army recruiting and about the extent to which the War Office now thinks that it will reach the targets for the Regular Forces
I hope that in reply to the debate the Secretary of State for Air will not only be able to answer some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), but also that he will be able to tell us something about the recruiting situation and the expectation of reaching the target in the Royal Air Force. Earlier this week the right hon. Gentleman said that the particular problem was the recruitment of aircrews. It would be of interest to the House if he could enlarge on these points tonight.
Since, quite properly, a good deal was said both by the Secretary of State for War and my hon. Friend the Member for


Woolwich, East about wastage in the Army, can the Secretary of State for Air tell us what the wastage rates are in the Royal Air Force in the first three months? We should like to know whether the Air Force has exactly the same kind of problem. If wastage rates are very much less in the Air Force, perhaps it would be a good idea if Air Force practices were copied by the Army.

Mr. Profumo: Except that we cannot fly.

Mr. Malley: I appreciate, of course, that the Army's job in recruiting is much more difficult than that of any other Service, but after all a man must have said that he wanted to join the Army—though some may think that perhaps he was not in his right mind at the time—and if he comes out within three months there must be something wrong. We all welcome the very serious attention that the Secretary of State for War is giving to this problem. The House looks forward with interest to hearing from him when we debate the Army Estimates or on some other occasion what progress is being made in its examination.
In view of the fact that there is other business tonight, I do not want to follow completely the points made about the size and function of the Army by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East. It is perhaps unlikely that we shall have the full answer to these points from the Government tonight but this debate, inevitably going rather wide as it has, may at least serve the purpose of indicating the kind of points that hon. Members will want to raise and have answered in the debates on the Defence White Paper and on the several Service Estimates.
I attach a great deal of importance to the point so effectively made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East about the conventional capacity of our forces in Germany. This, and the rôle of the tactical nuclear weapons, not only in Germany but in the Army as a whole, will attract a good deal of attention in the debates on the Defence White Paper and the Army Estimates.
It will also be interesting to hear about the conventional capability of the Royal Air Force. Can the Secretary of State for Air say whether, if it is necessary, both strategic and tactical tasks can be undertaken with conventional weapons by the Royal Air Force? Are the men still trained in conventional as well as nuclear attacks? The answers would be of extreme interest because, as the House knows, these are matters which are exciting a great deal of interest and controversy among military commentators in all parts of the N.A.T.O. alliance.
I made some observations on this subject in the Army Estimates debates both last year and in the previous year. I say all this although some of my hon. Friends who are concerned are not present, because they are on the record and I ought to be briefly on the record as well on this subject. The Opposition has not concerned itself only recently with the desire to have a larger Army than we appear to be getting and also with the desire that the Army should be able to discharge its obligations fully. It is wrong to ask the Opposition to say how many men there ought to be and how those men ought to be obtained. We have not the restricted, secret information and not the detailed information about how the existing men in the Forces are used and to what extent civilisation might be carried further.
We do not know about the wastage of which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon gave examples. Unless we have the power to go into all these questions it is impossible for us to say that there ought to be "x" thousand men in the Forces. It is equally impossible for us to say how they are to be obtained. But I say, and I understand the whole of the Opposition says, that we hold the Government responsible for seeing that the numbers in the Forces are sufficient to defend the country and carry out our responsibilities.
If the Government fail to obtain these numbers for the Forces, we hold them completely responsible. If they say, "We are sorry but our present policy and our policies over the last few years have failed and we cannot get the men as we thought we would get them" and they raise the question of cutting our commitments or raising additional numbers in some different way, they must tell the


House and the country what their problems are. We will then assess them on their merits and answer fairly whether we think they are good or bad. There must not be the idea that, somehow or other, every time we speak on defence matters we must say, in precise detail, how we should do this or that.
We shall be coming back to these matters on other occasions and, therefore, I say in conclusion that I welcome the assurances we have been given that the procedure for examining this Act will be followed as for the 1955 Act, and I look forward to the proceedings of the Select Committee.

7.21 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): This is the second time only that I have come to the Dispatch Box to speak for the Air Ministry, but I hope that from the ripeness of this experience I can congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) on his first appearance at the Opposition Dispatch Box to speak for the Opposition in these matters. I welcome his speech and look forward to many duels, or otherwise, with him in the months ahead.
I think that there has been general agreement that the Select Committee did its work very well when the first Act was framed. Some anxiety has been expressed, in more than one speech, that the Select Committee should have access to all necessary advice and information from the Departments. I can confirm what has already been said—that it is our wish that the Committee should have all the usual arrangements for obtaining Departmental information, and that if it were to find this information inadequate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and I would do everything we could to strengthen it.
This has been a curious debate, both in its timing and in its course. It has fallen between the annual debate on the affirmative Resolution, which we had last November, and the Defence Estimates, only just ahead. Naturally, therefore, it tended either to repeat what was said in November, or to trespass on the wider issues which we shall be discussing at the end of this month.
I shall not attempt to answer all the points which have been raised. Indeed, it would be wrong for me to do so, as a

good deal of them were of greater concern to my right hon. Friend than they were to my Department. I will, however, do my best to deal with some of them.
My task is made a little more complicated, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park recognised, by the appearance of some differences between some of those who spoke from his side of the House. There was the Front Bench view; there was the view represented by the hon. Members for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man); there was the view represented by the former Minister of Defence, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well); there was also the view represented by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It is not easy to take all these collectively and reply to them as if they represented one coherent counter policy,
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park said, in the early part of his speech, that our Armed Forces before the war had been out of tune with society. I want to comment on that, because it is not altogether fair to Mr. Leslie Hore-Belisha, who was Secretary of State for War and did very great work in bringing the Army up to date in the years immediately before the war.
Nevertheless, I agree with the principle underlying what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park said—that it is very important that the Armed Services should be in line and in tune with the standards of the society which they serve. The hon. Member said that it was the Government's responsibility to decide what manpower was needed, and that we must not expect the Opposition to make concrete counter-proposals all the time. We accept that, but we expect the Opposition to give us their support when they are satisfied that the courses which we are pursuing are sound in themselves.
I am sorry if I chop and change a little from big to small issues in my reply, but it is inevitable in such a debate. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park spoke of the importance of the soldiers' and airmen's right to appeal to their Members of Parliament. I can give a categorical assurance that we shall uphold this. The number of letters coming via Members of Parliament from members of the Armed Services is still voluminous, and I have no doubt that


hon. Members on both sides of the House would soon see to it if, for any reason, any obstruction were to be put in the way.

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman quite understood my point. Because of the National Service element in the Armed Forces, the habit and tradition of Service men approaching their Members of Parliament is well established. I want to ensure that, with the ending of National Service, there does not, instead, grow up the tradition that the worst crime in the Army's calendar is to approach a Member of Parliament. I was looking to the future rather than to the present.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member need have no anxiety on that score, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides would be the first to tell the Service Departments—

Mr. Mulley: If the men felt that they dared not approach their Members of Parliament, how could we tell the Service Departments?

Mr. Amery: I have no doubt, from what I know of the ingenuity of the Service man, that he would find a way.
The hon. Member asked me why there was no equivalent rank in the Royal Air Force to that of lance corporal or lance bombardier. We have never had an equivalent rank in the Royal Air Force. Our structure is different. We do not organise units in the same way. The rank of lance corporal is a traditional one in the Army, but the need for it has never arisen in the Royal Air Force.
The hon. Member asked me about confinement to barracks. This punishment was abolished twelve months ago. The restriction of privileges punishment, put in its place, does not create purposeless duties such as running round the square but gives extra duties in normal tasks. He also asked me whether the Royal Air Force is still trained for conventional tasks. The answer is that it is. Training is given in the use of conventional weapons in a wholly limited war.

Mr. Wigg: I presume that this training is geared to the old Short barrelled Mark IV rifle and not to the F.N.?

Mr. Amery: I was speaking about the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Wigg: Some time, presumably, the Royal Air Force is to get the F.N. rifle, although not yet.

Mr. Amery: I understood the hon. Member's question to refer to bombers and fighters.

Mr. Mulley: It was I who put the point about bombers.

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) asked me a number of questions. He asked, particularly, whether the Royal Air Force is needed at all. I shall not attempt to deal with that matter, though I could, in private, reply to him in kind.
My hon. Friend was anxious that we should not lean too much upon Section 69, which provides for conduct to the prejudice of the Service. There is a good deal in what be says. We must avoid putting too much weight on that "public mischief" Section. It reminds me of the juvenile deliquent who, when told that he was making a public nuisance of himself, said that it was better than being a public convenience.
My hon. Friend also referred to the offence of flying to annoy. It is some years since I was doing that myself. I was guilty of it before the war, but there was certainly no imprisonment at that time.
The hon. Member for Dudley raised a number of issues which could more adequately be answered in the Defence and Estimates debates. The prophet is not without honour, save in his own Committee, and I have no doubt that what he said will be carefully read in the War Office and the Air Ministry.
The hon. Member asked about the Congo airlift. I made inquiries about it, and I am advised that the great bulk of the airlift from Ghana to the Congo was undertaken by the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Wigg: When Ghanaian troops were first moved into the Congo, did the Royal Air Force provide the airlift?

Mr. Amery: I am giving the hon. Member the best information I have available at the moment. His question has been noted. I am told that the great bulk of the airlift was undertaken


by the Royal Air Force. I gave figures in answer to a Question on 30th November to show what we had done. At present, Ghana's forces in the Congo are sustained almost entirely by the Royal Air Force airlift, which is continuing.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East gave us his views in a speech which one of his colleagues described as thoughtful, challenging and characteristic. I endorse at least the last comment. He asked a number of questions about the use of tactical weapons by ground forces. I am not in a position to answer and no doubt the hon. Member can pursue that matter with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park asked me if I would say more about Royal Air Force recruiting. I have not much to add to what I said on 25th November. Broadly speaking, the most important change we have made is to allow a shorter engagement for aircrew with a break at five years. We have just made that arrangement to make good the deficiency in aircrew, to which I referred in a public speech the other day, and already the number of applications has risen sensationally in the two months since the shorter engagement was introduced.
The right hon. Member for Easington suggested that we should keep a stronger reserve at home. I will not go into the details of the arguments about deployment at home and overseas, but I assure the right hon. Member that our transport forces are being expanded all the time and I hope that there will be figures in the Air Estimates Memorandum which will be of some comfort to him.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) asked me about wastage and discharges and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park asked what the Royal Air Force wastage was. It is 2·7 per cent. in our case, although we get much higher wastage figures in the training of air crew, not through voluntary discharge but through inability to reach the necessary standards. Both Services feel very strongly that they do not want any "reluctant heroes", and I think that that is the feeling of the House.

Mr. Mulley: Is that wastage of 2·7 per cent. in the first three months?

Mr. Amery: Yes.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), asked about the remuneration of counsel defending airmen. The Bar Council has given as its opinion that the fees we pay are reasonable. Men in Germany can ask for any counsel to go to the command to defend them. That counsel is then approached to see whether he can go, subject to his other commitments. If the accused does not name counsel, he is given a short list from which to choose. In the United Kingdom an accused is normally defended by a solicitor, but if the case is very complicated counsel may defend him.
The hon. Member also asked about forfeiture of pay and emphasised that soldiers or airmen should not be left without money in their pockets. It is intended to provide by administrative orders that sums paid by forfeiture of pay should be spread over a period when the offender cannot pay immediately. The hon Member also asked whether there should not be a limit to the number of forfeitures of pay imposed in a certain time. That would be a little difficult.
One could easily get a situation in which a man had paid a number of forfeitures of pay and would then be free, as it were, to make mistakes and not suffer that punishment. However, I have no doubt that, in practice, as the hon. Member would be the first to recognise, if a man has committed a number of mistakes which would normally attract forfeiture of pay as a penalty and that penalty has proved to be an inadequate deterrent, his commanding officer would think of something else.
The hon. Member also asked about leave in the Services. It is perfectly true that there is not the same certain knowledge that there is in civilian life that one's leave will come at a certain time, but an airman serving at home is assured of 30 days' leave each year and twelve extra days may be granted to warrant officers and airmen engaged on flying duties, and to a number of other categories—instructors in parachuting, mountain rescue teams, apprentice and boy entry schools, and so on. Although there is not the same certainty as to the


time, the amount of leave allowed is a good deal more than it is in industrial life. In addition, there is leave on public holidays and there are many week-end opportunities.

Mr. Morris: I was asking whether an effort could be made to have more certainty. I appreciate that it is impossible to have a certainty comparable with that in civilian life, but could not some effort be made, especially when a Service man has made plans to take leave at a given time? Could his leave not be kept to that date if that is at all possible?

Mr. Amery: As the hon. Member will appreciate, my right hon. Friend and 1 and our predecessors have always tried to see that there should be as much certainty as possible. I do not think that the relative absence of certainty is a deterrent to recruiting, because in many ways the amount of leave is a good deal better than it is in civilian life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) asked about Clause 35. The object of that Clause is to enable protected persons to hold the Queen's commission in the forces of their Protectorate or Colony.
I have not tried to reply to every comment made in the debate. It would have been impossible and often out of order to have done so. Many of these matters will arise as general issues in the bigger debates ahead. I have no doubt that everything we have said will be studied by the Select Committee, and even that is by no means the end of our inquiry into the matter. There will be the ordinary stages of legislation in the House and in another place so that there should be ample opportunity for us further to consider any matters on which we are in doubt and for further constructive suggestions to be made.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on my suggestion about the remuneration of National Service men in the final months of their service?

Mr. Amery: I would not care to comment on that at the moment.

Question, That "now" stand part of the Question, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee.—

OVERSEAS SERVICE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,

That for the purposes of any Act of this Session to authorise the Secretary of State to contribute to the expenses incurred in connection with the employment of persons in the public services of overseas territories or in respect of compensation paid to persons who are or have been employed in those services, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums falling to be paid to the government of any such territory under any agreement entered into by the Secretary of State for reimbursing that government in respect of expenses incurred by them—

(a) in connection with the employment in the public services of their territory of persons designated by him, or
(b) in respect of compensation paid to persons so designated who are or have been employed in those services.

Resolution agreed to.

OVERSEAS SERVICE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO CONTRIBUTE TO EXPENSES.)

7.39 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end to insert:
but only in respect of those governments who have brought the pensions of their expatriate pensioners up to the level of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959".
I spoke at length on Second Reading and do not wish, therefore, to detain the Committee very long. I could have wished that the Money Resolution had allowed me to put down another Amendment, because I do not understand the argument that under-developed countries should be responsible for the results of whatever may be the inflation in the United Kingdom.
It seems to me that we are responsible for the management of our currency, and if the value of that goes down it is up to us to see that the pensions of those who have served Her Majesty overseas are put up accordingly. In fact, it is the overseas territories' responsibility to pay, say, a preference dividend as part of the group, and we are responsible for looking


1after the equity. As far as I can see, all the Commonwealth countries and Colonial Governments have so far done what they should have done. They have no control over the management of finance in the United Kingdom, and I do not see why they should pay anything extra.
However, I have to be content with the Amendment which restricts the powers that my right hon. Friend wants to take. I regret this, because I think that he is quite the most dynamic Secretary of State that we have had for a long time. He has seen how important the Overseas Civil Service is to the Commonwealth, and he has taken action to restore the morale of that Service. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking him for the table he sent me yesterday which shows how many territories failed to increase their pensions to those of the United Kingdom Act of 1959. If territories that were the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations were added, the picture would look much worse.
I would like to quote one or two cases in case the Committee is still unaware of the bad position of some of the pensioners. I have here the case of a fitter in the Public Works Department in the then Gold Coast. He was born in 1881 and retired in 1932. His pension is £158 17s. 6d. to which, if he were married, he would have had £80 added and, if unmarried, only £60.
I have details of another case of an accountant from the Public Works Department in Nigeria. He was born in 1887 and retired in November, 1931, with a pension of £144, to which £75 has been added. Another case is that of a senior foreman platelayer on the railways in Nigeria. He was born in 1877 and retired in 1931. He has a pension of £178 16s. 8d. to which has been added £80.
I understand that the Nigerian Government have announced substantial increases. I have been unable to discover what those increases are, but perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to give us some idea of the scope of those increases. As the Nigerian Government are progressive and liberal, it would not surprise me if those increases are substantial.
The last case of which I have details is that of a resident, a very senior civil servant. He was born in 1898 and retired at the age of 50. He has a pension of £535 with a supplement of £180. I mention that because my view is that those who retired before salaries were uplifted after the war should receive priority of treatment over those who had the benefit of bigger salaries. A resident of recent years would have had a salary of £3,000 and a pension of £2,000, or £1,500 if some of it had been commuted. How different from the resident who retired very much earlier and who had to suffer from conditions far more onerous than those of today.
I have two letters about which I would like to tell the Committee. They deal with the position of widows. The first concerns the widow of a man who worked in the Public Works Department in Uganda, and died more than thirty years ago. The widow is now 86 and has applied to the National Assistance Board for help as she has no adequate means of support. Her pension is far too minute.

7.45 p.m.

The second letter is dated 28th November, 1960. In this case the deceased was a member of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association and a contributor to the Malayan Widows and Orphans Fund until 2nd February, 1939, when, after thirty-five years of payment, he was told by the Crown Agents that he need not pay any more. His widow now has a pension of £56 14s. 6d. which has been lifted to £79 8s. 4d. All that he left was a small house, £127 in National Savings, and £112 in a joint account in Lloyds Bank. My hon. Friend may say that it was up to the civil servant to look after his widow, but this was a contributory fund. If it had been run by private industry, I am sure that steps would have been taken to ensure that the fund was put into a proper state.

Can my hon. Friend say how many pensioners there are? I asked him this question during the Second Reading debate, but he did not tell me how many pensioners there were or how much it would cost to bring pensions by the overseas Governments up to the standard in the United Kingdom Act.

During the Second Reading debate, I asked my hon. Friend:
What happens when an independent territory, possibly Ghana or one of the other territories, just does not do this? Are we to abandon our ex-servants?

My hon. Friend replied
No. We obviously would not abandon them, but that case has not arisen.

I suggested that it had. He went on to say:
I said we would not abandon them, but the principle still remains that the responsibility for their pensions must be up to the overseas Government. If the overseas Government fail in discharge of their responsibility a new situation arises, which we should have to consider."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1961, Vol. 633, c. 102.]

I then asked how long they would be allowed to fail.

May I remind my hon. Friend that the last increase by the Government of Singapore was on 1st January, 1955, and that the last increase given by the Government of Ghana was as long ago as 1st April, 1952. I wonder how many pensioners who have served Her Majesty so well in the past have since died without any increase in their pensions.

I cannot believe that the bill would amount to very much. I believe that it would be negligible compared with the £3 million that we are apparently prepared to spend in the Cameroons. even though they leave the Commonwealth.

Having said all that, I wish to pay my tribute once again to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies because, by bringing in the Bill, he has gone at least seven-eighths of the way towards helping the Overseas Civil Service. I only hope that its members will not take too much notice of the way in which Her Majesty's Government have treated their predecessors so far.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I should make it clear at the outset that I was a colonial civil servant, but I do not draw a colonial pension, so I have no financial interest in the points that I shall make. My hon. Friend will know that pensions drawn by Colonial Service officers vary greatly, although the officers may have served for the same number of years. That is because Colonies are usually responsible for paying pensions and they vary greatly

in their wealth, living conditions and standards of life.
A pension is normally calculated on the pensionable emoluments to which an officer receives during the last three years of his career. An officer who served in Malaya or Hong Kong therefore did rather well, because salaries in those territories were high. On the other hand, an officer who served in the West Indies, East Africa, or Aden, did not do so well. In those territories costs were lower; they were not wealthy countries, and they could not pay such high salaries. If officers ended their careers in those areas they received lower pensions.
That always seemed to me to be an unsatisfactory arrangement, and it has been recognised as such. If my hon. Friend will look up some of the old Colonial Office papers from before the war he will find that there was then an idea that a fund should be established to which all Colonial Territories should contribute and which could be used to even out pensions. Right hon. Members opposite may know something about that. The question is whether, under the new arrangements provided by the Bill, my right hon. Friend will be prepared to use the moneys to be voted to even out pensions in future. I hope that he will give very close attention to this matter.
I very much welcome the steps that are being taken to improve conditions for officers overseas, but we shall not get very far until we have a proper Commonwealth Service, to which all the Dominions are asked to contribute and in which people in all the Colonies and our great Dominions can serve.

Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: I want to say a few words on the subject of widows and orphans, in support of the Amendment. Provision is made by the father or husband for his wife and children with the definite intention that they should not become dependants, or a charge upon the State, should he, unfortunately, leave them bereft. Pensions schemes are managed by Crown Agents on behalf of the Colonial Governments, and the names are registered with those Crown Agents.
I am told that, unfortunately, the only accurate figures which can be obtained are those for East Africa. In the summer


of 1959 there were about 20,000 contributions; about £8,197,000 had been contributed and about £2,399,000 paid out. These calculations are as near accurate as may be. They give a general idea of the position The Overseas Service Pensioners' Association has reckoned that total contributions for all Colonies in this respect might amount to £20 million.
In most Colonies, in return for the guarantee of a pension—and this is always done with the consent of the Secretary of State, so it has official recognition—the pension money is paid into general revenue, and often helps to balance the budget of the country concerned. Only in one overseas Government—Northern Rhodesia—have these pensions been funded. It seems a pity that that practice is not more universal.
Some territories have been very good and have increased their pensions, and also raised the pensions of widows and orphans, but some of the newly independent countries have not fulfilled their obligations. Ghana, Sierra Leone, Malaya and Singapore have left their widows—especially the older ones—in a desperate state. I am told that in Singapore and Malaya no increase is paid to a widow without dependants if she has £350 a year, and that if she has dependants nothing is paid to her if she has £450 a year. Ghana is slightly better, but not much.
I want to underline the point made by my hon. Friend that delay in payments in cases like this, where people live on the borderline of poverty, is a tremendous hardship. We are told that in the case of default the Government can step in, but to these people a long delay is almost as bad as default, and if the default took as long to remedy as the Egyptian compensation scale a widow would be dead and her children starving before anything was done.
I therefore stress that this class of pensioner—the aged widow and the widow with children—needs our sympathetic support and help in every respect. The Association has stressed various points, of which I want to underline three. It has asked whether Her Majesty's Government will effectively secure adequate increases, especially in the territories named, that is, Malaya, Singapore and Ghana. It has also asked the Government to remove

the means test and other restrictions, in the case of widows' pensions. Secondly, it has asked whether safeguards have been inserted in the documents granting independence, in all cases, and whether they will be so inserted in the future. It also wants to know the terms of those safeguards. Thirdly, it asks what means are contemplated to ensure observance.
These new countries will probably continue to come to us for a great deal of financial help, which we are only too willing to give them in such measure as we can afford. In those circumstances we must not overlook our own people, especially the class that I have mentioned, which cannot be very vocal and certainly is in the greatest need. If we give these territories help we are entitled to expect that they will give this class of pensioner special attention

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: . We on this side of the Committee are concerned about this matter. We cannot support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney), because he referred to the expediency of this Amendment being necessary in order to discuss the matter during the Committee stage. He realises as well as any of us that to impose this condition on agreements reached under Clause 1 would be very undesirable indeed.
The whole Committee is concerned at the way in which this country treats its public service pensioners, and in this House from time to time we consider pensions increase Bills to give to home civil servant pensioners some additional share in the prosperity of the country, or to raise the purchasing power of their pensions; to give them a square deal in relation to the rest of the community and to fulfil, if only partially, the expectation they have had throughout their period of service that when they retired they would have a share of a reasonable standard of life.
Now we are considering the position of colonial civil servants who are not covered by pensions increase legislation passed for the home Civil Service, and for whom we look to the territorial Governments for a remedy for their position. I had some sympathy with the Under-Secretary during the Second


Reading of the debate when there were those exchanges, which are reported in column 102 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 24th January, about what Her Majesty's Government would do if faced with a default by the territorial Government on the payment of pensions to colonial civil servants.
Naturally, the Under-Secretary recoiled from coming out boldly to say the Government were stepping in to make up the default. That would be too much of a temptation to Governments who may perhaps feel that these responsibilities bore hardly on them in their difficulties as they move to the full manhood of self-Government. But Her Majesty' Government have a responsibility which I think none of us wishes the Government to avoid in any way. I think the Under-Secretary went as far as he could on the general question in saying that Her Majesty's Government would not abandon these pensioners, and, if there was a default, a new situation would arise; and I have no doubt the Government would consider what should be done in the light of the circumstances which had arisen.
As I understand it, we are not dealing with that in this Amendment. Nor, for the moment, is there any question behind this Amendment of asking the Government at this stage to assume full responsibility for paying the whole of the pensions of colonial civil servants. The hon. Member is asking the Government to take some responsibility for seeing that the pensions increase element is added to the basic pensions and if it is not added by the territorial Government concerned steps should be taken to see that it is. His Amendment would withhold from territorial Governments the whole of the benefits under the White Paper, unless they first accepted the condition that they must raise the pensions of their civil servants to the equivalent level of pensions increases for the home civil servants.
I think that Her Majesty's Government ought to assume this responsibility, which would be the cleanest and the fairest way to do it. I know it is asking the Government to assume a greater financial responsibility, but we should consider the sort of complaint which could be made by a territorial Government at being asked to add to a pen-

sion already determined. There might be such comments as, "Why should we subsidise inflation in Great Britain?" or, "Why should we make an additional contribution to the pensions paid to our civil servants because your civil servants may have been given a share in your greater prosperity—a prosperity in which we do not yet share?"
One can see the point of view behind such comments. But, since Her Majesty's Government, under the terms of the White Paper, are willing to assume a pretty heavy additional financial burden in order to facilitate the emerging territories to come to independence under the most favourable conditions, it would seem an occasion for the Government to make a clean job of this grievance about pension increases to colonial civil servants who must necessarily come back to this country to live. It is not suggested that they should retain their residence in the Colonial Territory to enjoy their pension. Most of them belong to this country, and this is where they wish to retire and where they are entitled to live under reasonable conditions.
We have the strongest sympathy with the underlying purpose of the Amendment and associate ourselves with the general sentiments expressed by hon. Members opposite. So it is now up to the Under-Secretary to meet the united wishes of the Committee.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): First, I should like to say how welcome it is to see a proper regard for our ex-colonial civil servants voiced from all parts of the Committee. If taken literally, this Amendment, which I will deal with later, would be most dangerous.
I think it appropriate that I should say something about what has been done and what we propose by this Bill, and what should be our attitude to this extremely difficult question. The problem was put both by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) about where final responsibility in these matters should lie. Specific points regarding individual pensions were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet). As she knows, my right hon.
Friend is in touch with the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association, and some of the points she raised have already been taken up by him in an interview last week.
I should like to make the general position more clear. As was said by my right hon. Friend last Tuesday, as a result of his efforts action has already been taken in twelve of the eighteen territories which have not yet accepted the 1959 Act. My hon. Friend asked about Nigeria. There the increase is 15 per cent. as from October, 1959; I have not the full details. The details vary as we are dealing with forty territories, and between Territories, as my hon. Friend said, there are variations. I think that there must continue to be variations.
I should like to spell out in detail what this means. Of all the territories for which my Office is responsible, in nine of them the rates of pensions increases are in all respects better than those paid to pensioners of the United Kingdom Government. In seven others the rates are better except in respect of smaller pensions. In four territories, further increases are under consideration, and in another increases in respect of smaller pensions are, by a recent change, better than those payable here. In three more territories a salary revision is in progress, and in yet another my right hon. Friend is in close touch with the Governor about a possible increase. There remain six territories, five of which are only small employers of overseas officers, where increased rates are generally worse than those accorded here.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead said that certain of these territories are backward, as is well known, but the general position is by no means unsatisfactory and, for the great majority of pensioners—and I stress the great majority—in sixteen territories, which include many of the larger ones, pension increases are better than those accorded under the United Kingdom Government. This must be borne in mind when individual cases are raised.

Mr. Tilney: Does my hon. Friend mean the majority of the population or the majority in the number of territories? There is no doubt from the Answer he sent to me yesterday: that in the majority

of cases the increase is less than in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fraser: There may be a difference, but what I have said is. I think, correct. This is a real problem and, as hon, Members have pointed out, it does not apply merely to the scale for 1959 but to the future as a whole.
This is peripheral to the main point of the Bill, but in this matter I believe the Bill makes a real contribution. As hon. Members will have noticed, in this Bill the United Kingdom Government will pay that part of pensions in future which derive from the inducement allowance. If hon. Members have studied various reports, they will have seen that the inducement allowance is a very considerable factor in salary and, therefore, in pension. This is a large step forward. Any attempt to wreck the Bill by this sort of Amendment would be the greatest possible disadvantage to those in the Service and those who have left it.
I am indeed glad that my hon. Friends do not propose to push this matter to a Division. I am sure that to do so would hamper us in our work for overseas officers as a whole. We are just about to engage in the most elaborate series of negotiations, which are bound to be of a most delicate nature, with a large number of territorial Governments. In emerging territories there is naturally a fear of any strings being attached to technical assistance. It is as technical assistance that we must regard the Bill. We must do nothing which would disturb the harmony which still exists—and I hope will continue to exist—over financial matters between the great bulk of territorial Governments and ourselves. The figures I have given show that except in five cases the actual position is better, or about to become better than it has been. There remain six. Six out of forty is not so bad, and sixteen are being better paid than in this country. It would be the height of folly to use the bludgeon, which this Amendment would be, against a specific problem. It would be very much better handled by the normal process of negotiation.
It is not as though it were a process which halted or occurred only at infrequent intervals. There is a permanent process of negotiation between the office I have the honour to represent and the territories. In this way we can achieve


the desired result. My right hon. Friend has expressed himself at this Box and to the pensioners as most desirous that their position should be improved. He is going to report to them in the next few months, and, of course, we shall keep the House informed. The way to proceed in this matter is to negotiate and by producing a great and good Bill like this without strings attached to it. Everyone who is a retired pensioner can feel assured of the warmth of interest shown in his case by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and that this Government will never let them down.

Mr. Tilney: If the Under-Secretary will make use of the arguments provided in this short statement to make the remaining six see their obligation, and provided my right hon. Friend goes on with the negotiations—as I know he will, and we wish him luck—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out subsections (2) and (3).
This Amendment is moved in no captious spirit. I think it unlikely that at the end of the debate we shall take it to a Division. Perhaps one defeat of the Government in Committee in one day is enough; we do not want to add to it.
The point we are dealing with is very narrow. Subsections (2) and (3) read as follows:
No such agreement shall be entered into, and no person shall be designated under such an agreement, except with the consent of the Treasury.
The consent of the Treasury to the designation of any person under such an agreement may be given generally in respect of persons of such descriptions, and subject to such limitations (if any), as may be specified in the consent.
I move the deletion of those two subsections in order to ask the Under-Secretary to be good enough to explain to the Committee why they are in this Bill.
Parliament in its wisdom is about to pass this Bill, which is an excellent one and one which we all want to see on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. These agreements will be made by the Colonial Office and the territories concerned. They will have

to get together and form agreements under the Act. No one can tell me that either the Colonial Office or the territory concerned is going to do anything silly or rash. They will make an agreement which is just in every particular and the best possible agreement in the circumstances.
If Parliament gives the Colonial Office this power, as it is about to do, why should the Treasury have power to override Parliament? That is what this provision means. The Treasury can step in and say to the Colonial Office, "It is true that Parliament has given you these powers and we know that you know more about it than we do because you are constantly dealing with these territories. It is true that you have representatives from these territories coming to talk to you and you have discussed this matter over and over again, but, in spite of that, we are going to say no if we feel like doing so." I think that is quite wrong.
I do not know whether when this Bill was under discussion the Colonial Office put up any fight against the Treasury in order to have these subsections deleted. I hope that is so. It takes from the dignity of Parliament that in matters of this kind some official at the Treasury should step in and say, "You are not to make this agreement. If you do, you will make it with such limitations as we insist upon." Parliament is giving the Colonial Office these powers. That should be enough, and the Treasury should keep out of it.
One or two of my hon. Friends raised this subject on Second Reading. We have had experience of the Treasury in another connection. When the new Constitution for India came into existence, a number of very valuable officers there found themselves without a career. They were, very properly, given compensation. To the amazement of many of us, although it was then agreed that the compensation should be repaid only if they received a permanent and pensionable post within two years, to my knowledge at least one individual who has recently been offered a permanent and pensionable post has been asked to refund £5,000 which he was given ten or twelve years ago. That is wrong, but the Treasury is insisting on it. I am in correspondence with the Financial Secretary about it. He has


been very courteous throughout. This is the kind of thing which startles me and makes me wonder whether in so many Bills we should give the Treasury the powers it often decides to take and which we allow it to take.
I cannot raise this case now. It was raised on Second Reading. It has nothing to do with the Colonial Office as such. However, it should put us on inquiry and make us think twice before in a Bill of this kind, with this knowledge fresh in our minds, we give the Treasury power to do the same thing to individuals affected by any agreement which may be made.
Without saying any more, I ask hon. Members to consider if they want with their eyes open to give these powers to the Treasury. I should like to think that without a vote the feeling in the Committee now is such that the Under-Secretary will give an undertaking that he will look at this matter so that when the Bill reaches another place these obnoxious subsections will be deleted.

Mr. H. Fraser: The Amendment comes very strangely from the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), especially from the right hon. Member for Colne Valley, who was such a distinguished Financial Secretary for so long some years ago. I imagine that it is a peg on which they wish to hang points which I promised on Second Reading that I would answer.
I must address myself to the argument advanced by a former Financial Secretary. First, I must echo the words of my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the co-operation which the Treasury has shown in preparing this very complex scheme. Far from regarding subsections (2) and (3) as impediments, we regard them as proper safeguards for the taxpayer and a direct acknowledgment of our co-operation with the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that even if these provisions were not in the Bill there would still be complete Treasury control. This is merely to acknowledge an accomplished fact and to acknowledge the co-operation we receive.
I am amazed by the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. This is a great step forward in Treasury control. In the 1929

Act, which covered all C.D. and W. operations until 1940, the Treasury itself was responsible for framing schemes of expenditure within the Colonies. We have at least reversed that situation. This is a perfectly proper part of the Bill and one which we must readily accept.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the former member of the Indian Civil Service who is now with the Colonial Office. I will not say that he is a prisoner there, because we are very happy to employ him. There is a special point here which is being dealt with between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
On Second Reading, hon. Members asked questions about the refund of compensation by persons who took jobs again after they came out. This is an important point and I hope that I am in order in referring to it. Here again, Treasury help has been of great assistance to us in framing our scheme.
Where the fresh employment is not pensionable employment but employment under a limited contract of service no problem arises and there is no question of officers making a refund of compensation. Officers who have retired from a service overseas under compensation schemes administered by Colonial Governments with earned pension and compensation for loss of career have not been required to refund their compensation if they have subsequently obtained other Government employment in a pensionable capacity. I am referring to colonial civil servants and not to Indian civil servants. This is the situation, and I trust that I have made it absolutely clear.
Various other points were raised to which I think it is only proper to refer. It this stage, again hanging them on the peg of Treasury assistance as in subsections (2) and (3). I think that it would be proper if I gave some assurance to hon. Members who raised specific points on Second Reading. There were questions about the East Africa High Commission. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East also raised the question of compensation for the Cocoa Research Institute and other bodies.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I do not see how this is relevant to the Amendment. I intend to speak to one of these matters on the Question,


"That the Clause stand part of the Bill", which will, no doubt, be moved.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Herbert Butcher): I, too, have a feeling that this discussion might take place with more propriety on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Fraser: I am very happy to proceed in that way. I thought that I might not be in order in trying to carry out my promise to the right hon. Gentleman and others to answer their arguments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now withdraw his rather weird Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: I quite understand that there may have been some surprise in the mind of the Under-Secretary when he heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, moving this Amendment, but it was still more surprising to us, having seen my right hon. Friend in the character of Satan rebuking sin, to see the Under-Secretary in the character of the victim defending the oppressor. The oppressor sat on the Front Bench, not far from the hon. Gentleman, but he never sought to defend the Treasury at all. We thought that that task would have been entrusted to the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
We were, however, relieved to find, and delighted to hear, that in recent years some progress has been made in these matters, and that the relations are now at least somewhat improved, even if they are not ideal. It appears that the Treasury itself now no longer enters negotiations and makes agreements; the Secretary of State for the Colonies has that responsibility. He makes the best agreement he can, and has then to obtain the consent of the Treasury.
Some hon. Members seem at times to think that the Treasury consists of a lot of officials in Downing Street. That is not the case. It consists of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and sundry hon. Gentlemen who are Lords Commissioners of the Treasury—who sometimes appear, but never take part in our deliberations. These august personages will have to

review the agreements that are made by the Colonial Secretary. As my right hon. Friend has already said, we do not, of course, intend to press this Amendment to a Division, and no doubt in a moment or two he will wish to withdraw it. We certainly hope that in exercising that final and ultimate authority which will lie in the hands of the Treasury, and will, no doubt, be carried out for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer by some of their nominees, that the new spirit evidenced in the Bill will prevail throughout.
It is quite clear that there has been a change of heart and a change of mind, but we are still not entirely satisfied with the frame of mind of the Treasury. We certainly feel that, even as now administered, the Treasury is not sufficiently favourable to the cause of developing the underdeveloped nations; is still too much inclined to look at all public expenditure as though it was almost certain to be evil, and try to cut it down. We trust that the Financial Secretary, having listened to this instructive little debate, will say to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "When these agreements come up, we must be reasonable and generous. The whole House is in favour of them, so do not let us be awkward, and get in their way".

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It seems that the case that caused us to move the Amendment cannot be dealt with by the Under-Secretary, but that it is a matter, not for him but for the Treasury, with which Department we must pursue the matter. That being so, and in the sure and certain hope that the Colonial Office—judging from what the Under-Secretary has said—will see that in future its own staff, and other personnel coming to it, are dealt with properly, and not in the niggardly way in which the Treasury is dealing with some of the Indian officials who served the country well, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Marquand: In our Second Reading debate, it was generally agreed that this Question might present the opportunity to go into a little more detail than we thought we had time for at that


time. Indeed, the Under-Secretary then said, and has now repeated, that this would be the opportunity for a somewhat longer explanation than he gave of some of the difficulties that we brought to his notice on that occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), in particular, referred to the obvious fact that, facilitated by the provisions of the Bill, large numbers of Her Majesty's overseas civil servants in many territories will opt to take the compensation to be provided, leave the service of the territories in which they are now employed, and either come back home or take some other form of work in another country. At the same time, as my hon. Friend said, while there will undoubtedly be some substantial number—we hope not too large—of overseas civil servants who will leave their present employment, in many of these territories there is a very grave shortage of local people able to take those vacancies.
That is particularly true in some of the East African territories. When I was last in Kenya—only two years ago, or not much more—I very well remember the Governor himself giving me the numbers of the young Africans whom he had in administrative posts in his own local service. It is no secret that he was alarmed by the smallness of the number available in reasonably responsible posts in that Administration.
Similar circumstances undoubtedly exist in Tanganyika. Perhaps—and I deliberately say "perhaps", because I am not sure—the situation in Tanganyika may be even more difficult than it is in Kenya. My hon. Friend laid emphasis upon this problem and suggested that some measures should be taken to provide for a rapid increase in the numbers of Africans qualified to take over. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State, in replying to that part of the debate, gave us some figures about East African territories. He said between 1954 and 1960 in Uganda the number of people in the public service has gone up from 16,000 to 22,000. He said that in Zanzibar the similar increase had been from 4.000 to 4,700.
At first sight, this may be reassuring but I would like to ask at what level these new entrants have come in. There

may be substantial increases in clerical posts or very junior executive posts in the Civil Service. That does not necessarily take care of the difficulty which may arise if, when independence is achieved, numbers of persons in higher administrative posts give up, take the compensation and go in for other work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), when speaking in the debate on the Estimates Committee's Report on the Colonial Office, made what I thought was a useful suggestion. For a few years after the attainment of independence he suggested some of the senior people now working for Colonial Governments in East Africa and elsewhere should take on the special task of training local inhabitants and natives of these territories to take on the higher responsibilities, even though they probably will still be very young men.
I take it that the Bill is not confined to those remaining in the service of the independent country who take on some other occupation than the one in which they find themselves when independence comes about. All these provisions, I assume—and I feel sure I must be right—of inducements, payments and the like, will apply even though they change their occupation within the employment of that emergent country. Is it practicable? Has thought been given to this idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East, that some of that might be used for a special—if I may use a colloquialism—crash programme on training? I know it may be said the best place to train young people is in the job—as they say in industry, "Training within industry"—and that the way to learn to be an administrator in the Civil Service is to begin at a low level and to go through the various grades and, on the way up, to learn how to take the final and ultimate responsibility.
That is a fairly long process. I want to know whether there is anything in mind in the way of suggesting to the African leaders in these territories in East Africa in particular that, perhaps, special programmes of training, with lectures and courses, designed to hurry up the process of becoming qualified to take senior administrative posts should go on.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal more fully than he did last time with the inter-territorial services. I raised this matter myself on Second Reading with special reference to the East Africa High Commission. The hon. Gentleman will admit that he said very little about that in his reply to me. He said:
We have to review the whole of East Africa as a totality, and I think the tendency will be for us to decide that the time when the members of the East Africa High Commission will he free to opt for compensation terms will be when the Commission itself is subject to constitutional change. That is to express simply a very complicated series of events."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th Jan., 1961; Vol. 633. c. 102–3.]
I really cannot agree with his adjective "simply". I do not think that it was very simple. I did not follow it very well when it was said and, having read it again, I still feel that it could be expanded with advantage for the understanding of simple persons like myself.
The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that this will be a very complicated series of events. I recognise that. Inasmuch as these three territories comprising the East Africa High Commission may attain independence at different dates, and there may be different opinions among them as to the value and purpose of the East Africa High Commission, and so on, it will be quite a difficult problem to emerge on the right side. I hope that the Government will emerge on the right side.
I hope that the East Africa High Commission will continue. I regard it as a very valuable institution indeed. I had the privilege of visiting the High Commission's offices and talking to its head—I forget for the moment what his title is—and the officials and hearing a great deal about the work that it does. It has developed a great deal from its origins, which I happened to see when I myself was there in 1948 and the Commission began as a meeting of three Governments.
It is now a highly organised central administration of a valuable common market with a series of common services. It is working well. I hope—if my words receive any attention whatever in East Africa—that the leaders there whom I know and have met personally will agree with me that it is a valuable institution which ought to be preserved if possible.
It is one of the major benefits of the sharp change in the Government's colonial policy which we have witnessed during the last two years, and, of course. of the wide leadership of Mr. Julius Nyerere, in Tanganyika, that there is now a possibility of the continuance of this association of East African States in this common market with their High Commission. We value it very highly. My purpose in talking about it tonight is not, of course, to expound my views on the East Africa High Commission, but to give an opportunity which, I hope, the Under-Secretary will take with both hands, to minimise the uncertainty which exists in the minds of its present officers.
It will, perhaps, be difficult for the hon. Gentleman to go very far, because negotiations have to take place. I know that, but I hope that he will expatiate about it and tell us a good deal more about the future of these members of the Overseas Civil Service who are employed by that particular High Commission.

8.45 p.m.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has received a further letter about the distinction made in paragraph 17 of the White Paper between those who are free to continue to serve a former Colonial Government and those who are required to retire. I explained this difficulty at some length on Second Reading, and I need not go into it again. However, on this occasion, it is the Association of Public Health Inspectors which has asked for clarification of this distinction.

I think that it is worth while to mention it again. Evidently, what the Under-Secretary of State said on Second Reading cannot have been read by the Association, and it might be as well to repeat it again. He said:
There are clearly two principles which should be observed in the negotiations. One is to ensure that the compensation is such as not to induce people to desert the service. The other is to see that it is fair to all parties"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th January, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 100.]

We entirely agree with that. In fact. I used words not dissimilar when I spoke on Second Reading. I realise that agreements must be negotiated and that it is impossible to say in advance, concerning a large number of agreements still to be


negotiated, precisely what conditions they will contain about those who are free to leave and those who are required to retire.

I am glad that, as I understand from what we were told on Second Reading, the staff associations are to play an active part in those negotiations. That is a valuable safeguard for the public health inspectors, administrative civil servants and all those who are interested. I also realise that the Under-Secretary of State cannot easily forecast precisely what will be in every one of the agreements which he is able to negotiate. He has already told us the spirit in which his right hon. Friend will negotiate the agreements and the major objectives which he has in mind. But as we have had the further letter to which I have referred, to the effect that there is evidently still uncertainty in the minds of Civil Service associations on this question, if the hon. Gentleman tonight could be more emphatic than he was in the undertaking which he gave on Second Reading, and can give a rather longer explanation of how he hopes to achieve the two principles which will guide him, the Committee will be very grateful.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I want to raise two points which were raised on Second Reading and to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State did not fully reply when he wound up. The first has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). I am glad that he mentioned it. The crux of the problem of those in the East Africa High Commission is the uncertainty to which he referred. It is this feeling of uncertainty which creates an unhealthy atmosphere in many respects.
When, in a few months' time, Tanganyika becomes independent, what will be the position of those employed by the High Commission? It is no good pretending that their position will be the same as it was originally, nor that their prospects will be as wide or secure as they were when they first entered the service. There will be some who will seek and find employment in the new Government of Tanganyika. In one sense, they will become Tanganyika civil servants. There are others who will remain in the High Commission.
In both cases they are people who were probably recruited by the Secretary of State. I should have thought that the time had come when those who are now serving in the East Africa High Commission, with the uncertainty in front of them, should be given some advice about whether they should go or stay and an opportunity of opting out.
The only other point that I would ask my hon. Friend to deal with is this. If the Bill is to be the success that we hope, and if it is to attract the type of man we hope it will attract, I think that the Government have to give some reasonable guarantee—I know that they cannot give an absolute guarantee—that there will not be long periods in an overseas service officer's career when he will be, so to speak, left on ice.
Suppose a youngish man in his late twenties accepts a contract of employment with a newly independent country, say, Ghana, and he works for the Ghanaian Government for ten years under his contract and at the end of that time, when his contract is up, he finds himself at the age of, say, 38. The Government must give some guarantee that they will look after him and his family in the intervening period after his employment with the Ghanaian Government has terminated and some fresh employment with some other newly independent territory is found for him.
Unless there is some reasonable guarantee of that sort, I do not see how the service under the Bill will be attractive to the kind of young man that we hope it will attract. That is a fundamental point and I ask my hon. Friend to deal with it.

Mr. H. Fraser: I will first attempt to deal with the wide point raised by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) about the training of Africans, which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and others raised on Second Reading. It is absolutely of prime importance for the localisation of the public services that there should be training of people of all races, whatever their colour or creed, and whatever the point of constitutional advance which the territory has reached.
As I said on Second Reading—and I hope that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East does not get my point about the numbers employed wrong—I was trying to illustrate, not


whether the numbers were good or bad or where the officers stood in the service, but the weight which a modern administration imposes on the Exchequer of an emergent country to provide for the numbers and pay required. That was the only point I was making, and that is why I believe that this Bill is so important and why this injection of skill is vital—possibly that is where the hon. Member for Wednesbury and I misunderstood each other—when we were speaking about bringing forward the required local officers.
A point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the use of experts. That is going on on a large scale in East Africa, Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. Hon. Members may have seen a report in The Times this morning of what is happening now in Kenya. We have already had questions about the training of people in Nyasaland.
I know that the hour is getting late, so I do not want to go into this in great detail. This is a matter of such importance that I believe it should be debated at proper length as a subject on its own. It is only just relevant to the Bill before us, and I have matters well within the Bill with which I should like to deal.
As hon. Members know, one of our great problems is the educational pyramid in some of these territories: at its base, the comparatively small number of school certificates, and at its summit the small amount of higher education emerging. That is why we believe that we should, as the right hon. Gentleman said, use the existing skilled people and also train people on the job. It is vitally important to train people within the existing framework, and we are trying to do that in East Africa as fast as we may with proper respect to the possible pace at which we can move.
In addition, a large number of people are being trained in this country. It is interesting to note the difference between the figures in 1950 and today—that is to say the difference in numbers of expatriates and local officers coming for training to this country. In 1960, for example, public service training in the United Kingdom was arranged by the Colonial Office for 1,200 locally-domiciled officers and 900 expatriate officers on more than 140 different courses.
It is interesting to note the difference in the figures for 1950, ten years previously, when locally-domiciled officers trained in this country numbered 275 and expatriates 1,100. There has been a great reversal in the proportion of locally-recruited and locally-domiciled officers coming to this country to be trained in the higher skills.
Many hon. Members would say that we could do more, but on the whole, when one considers the problems of education, of finding the buildings and people to give the training, and of absorbing these people into the service, what we are doing is commendable. I agree that at certain points we could wish for a faster pace, but the danger of too great a pace, which has been stressed again and again, is that it will weaken the service as a whole if the service becomes inefficient. I shall always be happy to answer questions, and I am pleased that the localisation or, in some instances, the Africanisation, of the local services should be regarded as of such importance by the House.
I turn now to some of the more specific points which have been raised. As hon. Members have pointed out, this is essentially an enabling Bill to permit my right hon. Friend to negotiate with between 30 and 40 overseas Governments. I must, therefore, remain somewhat vague. I am sorry if I confused the hon. Member for Wednesbury with words which I attempted to choose carefully, but if I surrounded the situation with an even greater fog than is natural to it, the negotiations should take place more easily because at least both parties will approach them with comparatively open minds. I will come to the question of the East African High Commission. Each of these territories has special problems and each of the negotiations is bound to be different.
The question of employment by statutory corporations has been raised. As I have explained, the designation of persons who will receive the full benefit of the Bill from payments made to local governments will be worked out in each agreement. That is inevitable. One general principle which I should like to lay down on this point is that essentially this is a Government-to-Government operation. The terms of the Bill can be applied only to people for whose selection


and terms of service the Secretary of State has been responsible. The terms cannot and do not apply to employees of statutory corporations which are not administered by the territorial Government. This can give rise to anomalies, one of which is the anomaly mentioned of the Nigerian railways.

9.0 p.m.

In East Africa the railways are run by the High Commission centrally, but in Nigeria where a statutory corporation took them over in 1955 people employed by the Nigerian railways were given the option of either remaining with railways or accepting the abolition of office terms at that time. There is also a similar type of anomaly in Singapore where statutory corporations have been set up to administer railways and the electricity supply. I am trying to point out to the Committee some of the complexities involved in drawing up general rules for the implementation of this series of negotiations which will be very complicated in each territory.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's problem in dealing with specific cases, but has he any information about the position of the Uganda Development Corporation? Would its officials come into the category that he has in mind?

Mr. Fraser: I should hate to say anything until I have looked at the individual cases. There have been transfers of people, who may have been appointed by the Secretary of State across to a corporation. The hon. Member and others will remember the designations which were read out by my right hon. Friend in the case of the Kenya Civil Service. To hear them listed alone, without seeing the text, was confusing and difficult to understand. I will write to the hon. Member on that point.
The matter depends on whether the individual has been transferred across, as in Kenya, where it will be found that a man appointed by the Secretary of State may have been transferred from one Department to another and moved into a situation where he comes under the purview of the Bill.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does this also apply to the officials of the co-operative farms, who originally could have been

appointed by the Secretary of State but who in the course of the readjustment of responsibility within an independent territory may now be employed by a non-official organisation? Would is apply to them as well?

Mr. Fraser: That again would have have to be a negotiation carried out locally between ourselves and the local Government.

Mr. Stonehouse: But they could be?

Mr. Fraser: It is conceivable, but I could not go any further than that now.
A point has been raised about the West African research institutes. This again is a complex question and one for local negotiation. As hon. Members know, these institutes are financed jointly by Her Majesty's Government and the three West African Governments. What we should like to do is to see employees of the research institutes come within the scheme, but it is a matter for negotiation, especially as one of the Governments concerned acquired its independence prior to September 1960.
It was also asked in a previous debate whether the High Commission territories would come in. It is our intention and hope that they will, but again this is a matter for negotiation. Although I may seem to be doing nothing but mentioning exceptions, it should be remembered that on our minimum calculation the numbers involved are nearly 22,000.
I turn now to the East African High Commission. The White Paper scheme—and I hope that I will answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney)—is intended to apply to all East African High Commission staff, including research officers, who are eligible for the benefits of the scheme. My right hon. Friend is in touch with the Administrator about the detailed application of the scheme to these officers, and the arrangements made will, as elsewhere in East Africa, be largely based on the pattern recommended by the Flemming Commission.
Discussions have taken place both in London and in East Africa, and staff associations have been consulted. There is no reason to suppose that there will


difficulty in reaching early agreement on the details of the application of the scheme to the staff.
The main concern of the staff is not with the content of the scheme as described in the White Paper, but with a matter outside the scope of the scheme and of this Bill—namely, their situation in the event of any of the East African Governments becoming independent. Some of the staff consider that they should become eligible for compensation as soon as the first East African territory achieves independence, on the grounds that they are all liable for service anywhere in East Africa, and that to serve in an independent territory would involve a change in their conditions of service.
They are also concerned about the future of the High Commission itself as an administrative entity when one of its constituent territories becomes independent. All these matters must be carefully studied, and I am sure that hon. Members will welcome the news that a delegation comprising High Commission representatives and representatives of the High Commission staff associations in each territory is expected to arrive in London shortly to discuss all these matters with my right hon. Friend.
I can assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend is well aware of and sympathetic to these problems. But it would be better if I did not go further than that and that I should leave these delicate and difficult negotiations to the arrival of these people in London.
I think that what I have said has covered most of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members. If I have failed to answer any specific points, I will try to meet them by correspondence. This question of pensions is a complicated matter, and the implementation of this important Bill throughout the 30 or more territories which fall to my office to look after is also complicated. I thank the Committee for the welcome and co-operative way in which it has proceeded with this Bill. I believe that it will be of great value to scores of millions of people throughout the world.

Mr. Marquand: The Under-Secretary of State said, quite naturally—and we ex-

pected it and cannot complain in general—that this and that would be a matter for negotiation. We rest satisfied that, in the generality of the territories that he mentioned, he will pay attention to what was said in this Committee, draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to it, and that it will all be borne in mind when negotiations take place.
However, there was one set of territories in connection with which I was disappointed with what he said—the High Commission territories of South Africa. With whom is he to negotiate there? Her Majesty the Queen is protector of these territories and will be so for a very long time. They are still very poor territories, and their rate of development has not been very rapid. The hon. Gentleman cannot mean that he is to negotiate with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
There are, we know, emerging Governments there. In one of the territories in particular, there has been a substantial advance towards constitutional democratic government. He may have been a little more reassuring when he told us, quite independently, that the Falkland Islands, or the Solomons or British Honduras could look forward to great improvements by the application of this scheme in their territories. but he should have made it clear that it would apply to the High Commission Territories in particular, and that he expected no difficulty in negotiating an admirable scheme for those territories.

Mr. H. Fraser: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. We hope that a representative of Her Majesty's Government will visit these territories in the course of the next month to conduct negotiations with civil servants and administrators in those territories. Of course, we shall be going ahead very shortly in negotiations with our own representatives in those territories.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES (CONFERENCES WITH COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES AND REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

HOME SAFETY [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major SIR WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,

That. for the purposes of any Act of this Session to enable certain local authorities in England and Wales to promote safety in the home and to make contributions to voluntary organisations whose activities consist of or include the promotion of safety in the home, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. Renton.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

CONSUMER PROTECTION [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major SIR WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session for the protection of consumers, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. Renton.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

CHARITIES (VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS' EXCEPTION)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: 1 beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Charities (Exception of Voluntary Schools from Registration) Regulations, 1960 S.I., 1960, No. 2366), dated 15th December, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be annulled.
This is not one of the cases in which a Prayer is likely to lead to a Division of the House or, indeed, to be pushed to a desperate conclusion, but we on this side of the House are anxious to find out a little more about this comparatively short Statutory Instrument.
Section 4 of the Charities Act, 1960, provided for a Register of Charities in which certain particulars of charities were to be entered, and charities were to be placed on the Register subject to certain exceptions, one of which was a charity excepted by Order or Regulations.
The Regulation we are now considering is such a Regulation, and the charities it excepts are:
All voluntary schools, within the meaning of the Education Acts, 1944 to 1959, being charities and having no permanent endowment other than the premises of, or connected with. the school.
Before the Charities Act was passed the matter of charities had been considered by Committees, and in August, 1959, a Committee reported on another matter, namely, the Rating of Charities with reference to the Charity Register which I have just mentioned. It said:
If compulsory registration were extended to include all charities in rateable occupation of land, it could be made applicable for rating purposes, and we recommend that this extension should be made. Registration would meet the need for a cheap and expeditious test.
This matter fell within the purview of the Pritchard Committee, as it was, because it was proposing that certain benefits in connection with rating should be given to charities. I need not go into the details of those benefits now, but they were quite definite, quite substantial, and of considerable importance.
What the Committee foresaw has come about. It said:
The compilation of the Register may take some time …
I think that the Committee was contemplating a single Register, which would include all charities. It is true to say that, shortly before the passage which I have mentioned, the Committee referred to a White Paper on Government Policy on Charitable Trusts in England and Wales. The Report says:
The Government"—
this was in August, 1959—
have announced their intention of requiring certain classes of charitable trust to register with the Charity Commissioners or the Ministry of Education.
It was after that that it went on to the passage that I have just read. The effect of excepting these charities from registration will be that they will certainly not be on the Register of Charities, wherever else they may be found.
Voluntary schools have hitherto been exempted from rates under an exemption which it is now intended to repeal. Voluntary schools are those schools not provided by the education authority in the first place but maintained by it, and I trust that the hon. Member will be able to reassure me on one point in this connection.
I notice that the Regulations are so worded that only those voluntary schools which are charities are exempted from registration, and I find it difficult to see how a school which has been provided in some way or another, and which is at any rate maintained by the local education authority can be anything but a charity. No doubt the hon. Member will tell us that it is of some practical importance in connection with the matters that I have just been talking about.
That very nearly covers all I have to say. I would merely remark that the other qualification for exemption under the Regulations is that they should be voluntary schools which have no permanent endowment other than their premises. If one treats the premises as a voluntary endowment one understands the type of school which might be excluded from the Regulations, in that it had substantial endowments—possibly being a very old voluntary school—and

for that reason was thought to be bound to register in the general register and, therefore, not to be entitled to exemption under the Regulations, but I am a little puzzled as to the reason for this classification, and I hope that the hon. Member will be able to help the House in this respect.
What we now have are, first, voluntary schools which, if anything, are not charities and, therefore, as to which no question of registration arises, and, secondly, voluntary schools which are charities, of which there are two classes—those which have no endowment other than their premises, which need not register, and those which have some endowment, however small, other than their premises, which need to register.
I should have thought that there were some very considerable practical inconveniences in this matter. A school which, hitherto, had had no permanent endowment, might be left by some benefactor with a sum of £100 one day, and it might find that it was compelled to register. On the other hand, having in some way or another spent or lost its endowment—and I can conceive of such a case—or perhaps having sold the land other than the premises and applied it to some further sanction by the proper authorities, a school might find that the opposite was the case, namely, that having hitherto had to register it was no longer obliged to do so.
In the exercise of its duties I suppose that the Ministry of Education will keep lists of all these schools, or, at any rate, will be in a position to collect them easily from local education authorities. It would help me to consider the merits of the Regulations if I could be given some idea of the size of the three classes of voluntary schools that I have indicated, and the reason for this somewhat curious provision which treats in a different way places which have no permanent endowment other than their premises.
I should like to know whether the word "premises" is a perfectly clear term in this case. Does it simply mean the school buildings, or does it include such things as the headmaster's house, or playing fields round the school, or at a short distance from it? Those are the questions I desire to put.
May I assure the hon. Gentleman of what I am sure he knows already, that whatever rates are to be paid by these bodies—the questions are closely connected with rates—will be paid by the local education authorities and not by the denominations concerned; so that here there is no question of bad treatment of any of the denominational bodies to whom so many of these schools owe their existence.

9.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I am very glad that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has taken the opportunity to raise this matter, since it will be for the convenience and better understanding of the Regulations if I say a few words about it.
First, the Regulations themselves arise under the provisions of the Charities Act, which was passed by the House last Session. It requires that all charities shall register either with the Charity Commissioners, or with my right hon. Friend and the Ministry of Education.
In Section 2 of that Act the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that provision is made for a division of this process of registering between these two authorities and my right hon. Friend is empowered by that Section to deal with all the charities which have connection with his work as the Education Minister. So that, by an agreed division of these duties, as was intimated during the passage of the Act, my right hon. Friend is now engaged in what falls to be his share of this process of registering and looking after educational charitable trusts.
There is, of course, a long history of the Ministry's connection with educational charities and in that time a very great deal of detailed information has been acquired within the Department about, so far as we know, all the educational charitable trusts. This information is now in process of being set out in a form which will be even more convenient than it is already.
I should like to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman on one point which he mentioned, that all information relating to the charitable trusts referred to within these Regulations is available

within the Ministry of Education and is known to be there. All those concerned with the field of education have long made a regular practice of dealing with their trusts relating to educational purposes through the Ministry of Education; and so, it being a very sound principle, I think, of democratic government that the demands of the Statute should not offend the convenience of the citizen, we propose that that shall continue, and that the, Ministry of Education shall continue to take care of all the detailed information relating to educational charitable trusts.

Mr. Mitchison: Can the hon. Gentleman reassure me on one point? The Pritchard Committee to whose Report I referred was considering the Register from the point of view of rating authorities. Outside London and outside the county boroughs, rating authorities are not the same as local education authorities. Are the rating authorities equally aware of this?

Mr. Thompson: In a few moments I shall deal with the points the hon. and learned Member raised about rating and how they may be affected under legislation making progress through the House. All this information is there. It is known to be there and it is common practice in the world of education and among education authorities for the Department to be consulted if questions arise concerning voluntary schools.
I now come to the schools themselves. As the hon. and learned Member suggested, they fall into three categories. Being voluntary schools, some of them are not charities, That is to say, they are run by private organisations for purposes of their own and in their own way. They have an existence outside the ordinary stream of schools within the State and voluntary system. They are, nevertheless, run by voluntary organisations. They make no demands on the public purse.

Mr. Mitchison: That means that they are running for other than voluntary purposes.

Mr. Thompson: But they are voluntary schools. I am talking about a group of 10,000 voluntary schools. Some are not charities, but are run for purposes other than charities. There are roughly


400 of them. Then there are some with premises in addition to the actual premises of the school. There are 3,000 or 4,000 such schools. They have other sources of revenue from trusts and benefices of one kind and another. Then there is the remainder of about 7,000 which are voluntary schools which have no resources other than those described in paragraph 2 of the Regulation before the House, which says that they have
no permanent endowment other than the premises".
that is to say, connected with the headmasters' house or the playground of the school.
The 7,000 or thereabouts are voluntary schools which are charities in themselves which will be excepted from registration if the House allows this Statutory Instrument to pass this evening. The effect will be that the information relating to these schools will still be available to us in the Ministry and available to those who have reason to consult it, or want to apprise themselves of what either the charitable trust or the school itself may be doing at any time.
To that extent there is no prejudice or hardship inflicted on the schools excepted under these Regulations. What will happen, however, is that the schools will not be embraced by the definition which the hon. and learned Member referred to when he read the passage from the Pritchard Committee's Report, which says there would be a simple and easy definition of an authority if it were once registered on the register for charities. Therefore, any of the benefits attaching to a charity either by this legislation or any other, such as relief from rates, could automatically be assigned to a charity or voluntary school if it were on the register.
In the case that the hon. and learned Member brought to the attention of the House, there seems no danger of any prejudice even if these excepted schools were not recognised in other ways as being charities. If the legislation now going through one of the Standing Committees were to be passed in the form in which I now see it before that Committee, the voluntary schools would be subject to a rating of 50 per cent. of the standard rateable basis.

Mr. Mitchison: If they are charities.

Mr. Thompson: If they are charities, but the voluntary schools, as the hon. and learned Member has reminded the House, do not themselves pay the rates. The rates are paid by the local authority and, therefore, there is no prejudice to the charity or to the voluntary school if it is within or without the definition of the Pritchard Committee to which he referred. It seems to everyone's advantage that the 7,000 schools, about which all the information is already known and recorded, should be excepted from the requirement to go through the process of registration once more since they have everything to gain by being excepted and nothing to lose. I very much hope the hon. and learned Member will feel that it would be to the advantage of all concerned if these Regulations were now to receive the approval of the House.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: This is, as the hon. Gentleman said, and as I hope I made clear, a question between groups of local authorities—local education authorities, on the one hand, and rating authorities, on the other. As between those two groups, it makes a difference. There are also some small questions of grant connected with it, with which it would not be appropriate, or indeed in order, to trouble the House.
Therefore, there was some reason for the questions I asked and for ascertaining the position of these schools as closely as I could. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for explaining the matter so clearly and for coming here, as he is bound to do, to answer what I think he knew was a probing Motion.
I had only one very short point. What has happened is that the schools have been exempted from registration, even registration with the Ministry, because the Ministry decides that it has all the information already and does not need to ask it again. I see the force of that, but I trust that the Department will consider taking some steps, perhaps in conjunction with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to see that its possession of the information is known to rating authorities and that the information is readily and quickly made available to the Central Valuation Office, in the first place. and then to the rating


authorities which may be concerned to use it.
Having said that and repeating my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRISONERS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Noble.]

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: In these days when there is such a clamour for ill-considered and panic measures to deal with the current wave of repugnant murders, it is undoubtedly particularly important to ensure that indignation shall not engulf justice. Feelings of horror at the nature of these crimes are shared by all, but such feelings are inevitably felt even more strongly by those who are closely concerned with the investigations of such crimes and with the interrogation of any suspect.
The more horrible and more outrageous the crime, the more likely are emotions to be aroused which, unless carefully controlled by strict and well thought out procedures, can lead to grave and sometimes irremediable injustice.
The innocent man, with a ten-year-old brain, Timothy Evans, was strangled to death by the State because, in my view, horror of the crime which had been committed led to lynch law attitudes invading police station and court room. We have, therefore, serious warnings of the dangers, whatever may be the administrative conveniences, of permitting any unauthorised enlargement of existing powers of a detaining authority to question a man charged with murder.
It is quite certain that, when in 1883 the then Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt, instructed the Treasury Solicitor, who at that time performed the rôle now performed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that in future where there was reason to believe that a defence of insanity was to be set up in a murder case—I stress that, where there was reason to believe that a defence of insanity was to he set up in a murder case—he should

take steps to have the mental condition of the accused inquired into by competent persons before the trial, there was no question of this being done to enable any accused to be brainwashed by a prison officer so that the prosecution may obtain evidence for its benefit and to the detriment of the defence. On the contrary, the then Home Secretary took this action to aid the defence. He had become seriously concerned that, owing to the inadequacy of evidence called by the defence, juries were convicting men of murder who subsequently were being found repeatedly at the statutory inquiry to be insane. Even this solicitude for the defence, however, was looked at with suspicion by the judges, who clearly were concerned that the defence's case should never be prejudiced by this procedure, and in 1904 after a judges' meeting, they insisted that not only must all medical reports obtained by the detaining authorities be handed over to the defence, but that in no circumstances must the issue of insanity be raised by the prosecution.
Again, in 1953, the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment pungently stated its objection to the proposal that the issue of insanity should ever be raised by the prosecution when the defence did not put forward the plea. Paragraph 448 of the Commission's Report states:
The most serious objection to this proposal may be briefly stated: it may prejudice the legitimate interests of the defence. The prisoner's counsel, or the prisoner himself, may consider it in his best interests not to raise the issue of insanity but to concentrate on rebutting the evidence that he has committed murder. The defence may seek to establish that he did not commit the act, or to plead justifiable or excusable homicide. or to show that there was sufficient provocation to reduce the offence to manslaughter. If in such a case the Crown or the judge raises the issue of insanity, the prisoner's evidence, if he goes into the witness box, will inevitably be discredited, and whether he gives evidence or not, the case for the defence may he seriously prejudiced in other respects
It is because these proceedings, hammered out to ensure a fair trail to a man accused of murder, which have hitherto been based on the Home Secretary's directive of 1883, the judges' meeting of 1904, and the basic principles enunciated by the Royal Commission in 1953, are now being breached and abused to the prejudice of the defence, that I have sought this Adjournment debate.
The Prison Commissioners, irrespective of whether or not it is the intention of the defence to raise the question of insanity, are now insisting on the right of their prison medical officers to attempt to interrogate every and any man accused of murder, and then to send the reports so obtained to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Under pressure, the Commissioners have acknowledged that the prisoner has a theoretical right to refuse to answer the medical officer but, in defiance of the Judges Rules, which prohibit any detaining authority attempting to cross-examine a man who has been charged with an offence, the Commissioners insist upon the right of their prison medical officers continuing to attempt to interrogate the man charged with murder even when those responsible for the defence of the accused have explicitly refused to give such consent.
As a result, if today a man charged with murder wishes to raise a defence quite removed from the issue of insanity. or quite removed from the issue of diminished responsibility; if, for example, he wishes to raise a defence of provocation that could cause him to be guilty of manslaughter but not murder. the Commissioners' present conduct is placing that man at a serious disadvantage.
The test—certainly since the Homicide Act, 1957—in deciding whether provocation is of such character as to justify a reduction of the charge from murder to manslaughter, is whether such provocation would have prompted a hypothetical reasonable man to slay another. If prison medical officers—nearly all of whom, lamentably, lack any psychiatric diploma—after repeated interrogation of a man in custody, hand over a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions indicating any sign of unbalance in the accused—albeit, an unbalance that is short of insanity or one amounting to the condition of diminished responsibility—the unfortunate accused in those circumstances can find himself convicted of murder, whereas if such a report had not been provided to the prosecution the man would rightly have received the punishment attracted to a conviction for manslaughter.
I am not raising this matter because it is an academic issue. I am satisfied

that cases have occurred in which, if the accused had not had a brainwashing report extracted from him by the prison medical officer, the jury would in all probability have brought in a verdict of manslaughter and not of murder. Again, out of the prison medical officer's interrogations, or out of the questioning by the so-called independent psychiatrist—who is also employed by the Prison Commissioners for this task—out of all those questionings, which oft-times last many hours and are spread over many days, the most intimate details of the man's life are uncovered. All the blemishes are revealed, some fact and some fantasy, and handed over to counsel for the prosecution who can utilise them in cross-examination of the accused, even though the defence are pleading that it is a manslaughter case and are in no way raising the issue of mental incapacity.
I am urging the Home Secretary to get back to his predecessor's original intentions; namely, that report should only be obtained if mental incapacity is to be raised by the defence. Nowadays, that is only if a defence of insanity or of diminished responsibility is to be pleaded. A simple inquiry to those in charge of the defence can speedily settle the question whether the reports are required, and if insanity or diminished responsibility is to be pleaded the co-operation of the defence in a medical and psychiatric investigation will, I am certain, be forthcoming.
However, if the existing malpractices continue, we are in danger of verdicts of murder being given as a consequence of clandestine investigation conducted in a prison cell between a doctor and a patient he has compulsorily acquired, and not as a result of evidence which would otherwise have been placed before an open court.
It will be clear to the Parliamentary Secretary that in raising this issue I am raising something concerning medical ethics, too. This issue certainly raises the question: should a doctor tell? Are the Prison Commissioners going to insist that their employees, the prison medical officers and their temporarily hired outside psychiatrist, must go on attempting to interrogate and medically observe any man charged with murder, although neither he nor his legal advisers consent


to such an interrogation, and then, to the patient's prejudice, voluntarily hand over a report, for which they receive payment, to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Doctors swear the Hippocratic Oath:
Whatsoever things I see or hear concerning the lives of men in my attendance on the sick, or even apart therefrom, which ought not be be noised abroad I will keep silence thereon, counting such things as sacred secrets.
The position now being adopted by the Prison Commissioners is requiring their medical employees, in my view, flagrantly to be in breach of their oath, and of the Judges Rules. It is arising because the Prison Commissioners are assuming powers that they do not possess and because they are seeking to apply mechanically procedures which, though perhaps suitable in cases of gross insanity of cases where the defence places the mental health of the accused in issue, are certainly not applicable in other murder cases.
I ask the Home Secretary to end procedures which are clearly causing considerable embarrassment to medical officers and defence lawyers and which, in my view, already have precipitated unfortunate court decisions.
I recognise that I may well have raised issues to which the Parliamentary Secretary will require further consideration should be given. I appreciate that in going over the historical factors which have led to this situation, and the facts I have stressed, and that there has intervened the Homicide Act, I may cause him to feel it necessary that further inquiries should be made. I trust that weight will be given to the complaints I make. I stress they are not academic complaints but ones which arise in professional practice. I hope after he has had an opportunity to give full consideration to these problems, there will be a revision of the instructions at present given to the Prison Commissioners.

9.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has done a useful service in drawing attention to these matters, although I must say that I wish that he had felt it within his power to do so in a way which did not cast reflections upon

people who are, after all, only doing their duty in carrying out the present authorised practice and procedure which have been followed for a very long time.
I am advised that the present arrangements for conducting medical examinations and for forwarding copies of medical reports have been in operation for about fifty years. During that time, both the method of taking the examinations and the procedure for forwarding the reports have been examined carefully and in detail by the Royal Commission to which he refers.
I think it is right, therefore, that I should ask him to think twice about these allegations of brain-washing by people in the public service who are doing their duty according to the authorised practice.

Mr. Abse: I am criticising the practice of the Prison Commissioners in giving instructions of this kind to their employees. My criticism is directed to the Prison Commissioners, who must take responsibility for what I regard, however long-standing it may be, as a malpractice. I am definitely asking that employees who are placed in this position should be relieved of the embarrassment which the instructions are placing on them.

Mr. Renton: If I may say so, I think the hon. Gentleman has quite missed the point of what I was suggesting, that is to say, that the use of this extremely unpleasant and opprobrious term, "brain-washing" was quite inappropriate to the practice, whether it be a sound practice or not. I hope that he will find it in himself to withdraw that allegation, because it really is not a fair one to make. It is, I understand, an allegation which he made in correspondence at an earlier stage. Naturally, I made inquiries about what the practice is, and I can assure the House that to call it brainwashing is a most inappropriate description.

Mr. Abse: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that what occurs, in fact, is that psychiatrists, who are well trained in investigating the condition of a man's mind, for long periods of time, for days, if necessary, interrogate a man who is facing a serious charge and who is alone in either a hospital


ward or a prison? The hon. and learned Gentleman may not like the term, but. whether one calls it a psychiatric investigation or calls it brain-washing, what occurs is that they are investigating the man's brain and they are endeavouring to obtain all the information they can out of him.

Mr. Renton: I shall not bandy words and phrases with the hon. Gentleman any more. I simply say that it has for a very long time been the established practice that a person who is in prison awaiting trial upon a charge of murder should receive a medical examination as to his physical and mental condition. It is true that he may be seen not merely once but quite frequently, but to say that he spends days being placed under rigorous cross-examination is, of course, very far from the facts.
I hope that it will be agreed by all who have a knowledge of the administration of the criminal law that it is desirable for two principal reasons that medical reports should be obtained, including reports on mental condition, upon prisoners who are about to stand trial upon a charge of murder. First, the defence may wish to raise a plea of "Not fit to plead", of insanity. of diminished responsibility, or some other defence to the charge of homicide, and will not be able to do so unless it is properly armed with adequate medical evidence, recent and thorough. So, in the first place, it may be in the interests of the defence that such evidence should be available.
The second reason is this. If such evidence is made available, it should be placed in the hands of the court. The court itself, especially in a case in which it is suggested that the prisoner is not fit to plead, will have to use same initiative in placing this issue before the jury, and it is therefore right that the court should have the medical report in its possession. As I say, this practice was considered by the Royal Commission, which, for those broad reasons, affirmed it as a sensible practice.
I think that where the hon. Gentleman possibly has reason to doubt the practice—I say this without prejudice—is when copies of the report reach the hands of the prosecution. It was made known to the Royal Commission that that might happen. It also came to the attention of

of the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, that this might happen. The question of whether the prosecution should receive reports is naturally one which has engaged the attention of the Home Office and of the other authorities concerned. As a matter of practical convenience, it has found it desirable to let, at any rate, the Director of Public Prosecutions have a copy of the Report because, after all, he is a responsible public authority whose office has a tradition of fairness in the prosecution of cases. If there is a medical report on a man's mental condition available, perhaps the best and surest way of ensuring that it reaches the court is that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be told that there is a report and should know of it contents, and then counsel for the prosecution can always be alerted to inform the judge that there is a medical report if the need should arise.

Mr. Abse: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman understands that this report gets into the hands of the prosecution and is maintained in the prosecution's hands. If there is anything in issue, the defence does not need to rely on the Prison Commissioners' psychiatrist. With legal aid available, the defence can and does obtain its own psychiatrist. There is no need for dependency on the prosecution.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that the Prison Commissioners' medical officer's report is not the only report which could be obtained, but there have been many cases in which easily the most convenient way of obtaining an accurate up-to-date report on a prisoner's mental condition is by the long established procedure of obtaining a prison medical officer's report.
I should invite the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave when the hon. Gentleman tabled a Question about this matter. My right hon. Friend said:
It has for long been the established practice for a report on the mental condition of any prisoner charged with murder to be furnished by the prison medical officer to the court through the Director of Public Prosecutions, who supplies a copy to the defence. The Royal Commission on Capital Punishment approved this practice, but recommended that such prisoners should in future be examined


by an independent psychiatrist of standing as well as by an experienced member of the prison medical service. The Government accepted this recommendation. I see no reason to disturb the existing arrangements, which have been generally accepted as being necessary and desirable in the interests of justice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1960; Vol 632, c. 74–5.]
I must point out that, as far as I am aware—the hon. Gentleman can correct me if his information is otherwise—
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. F. Pearson.]

Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman has information to the contrary, no doubt, he will intervene and say so. So far as I a in aware, the complaint which he has made tonight is the only complaint which has been brought to notice that the practice is in any way an unsuitable one. I think that the experience of those who have seen this practice at work, whether from the point of view of the Prison Commission and the Home Office, or, indeed, from those who practice in the courts, and that includes myself, would accept this as a practice which is not abused and one which in a vast number of cases has been to the benefit of the accused.

Mr. Abse: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to direct his attention to the point that I am making, and which I say has arisen in cases, namely, the intention of the Royal Commission and the historical facts within the Royal Commission showing that these reports should be given only when the defence put the question of a. man's sanity in issue. When in fact the mental health of the man is not put in issue by the defence, as in the case of a charge of manslaughter, why in defiance of what the Home Secretary clearly laid down, and which was clearly intimated in the Royal Commission's Report and decided on by the judges in 1904, are the Prison Commissioners not bothering to find out in any way at all whether sanity is in issue? That is the crux of my complaint, and that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt with.

Mr. Renton: That is not the only point involved, and I hoped that I had made that clear at the outset of my remarks. Obviously, if sanity is likely to be in issue, then one of these reports should be obtained in any event. There are various other reasons I have mentioned beside the issue of sanity which make these reports certainly not only valuable but necessary. As I have said, they have become a matter of routine administration for the past 50 years or more in cases in which there is a charge of murder. I will consider further what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight. He kindly said that he did not expect a final answer from me now. I should like to consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Meanwhile, I must stress again that our experience is that this practice is a beneficial one, that it has not been abused and that the complaint which the hon. Member has made appears to be an isolated one.
I know that the hon. Member has in mind the facts of a particular case to which he has invited our attention in the Home Office. It would not be proper for me to comment on the facts of that case and the hon. Member would not expect me to do so. I should, however, add this, although not because it arises from that case. It is an appropriate general comment which I should make in answer to the hon. Member. These reports are not made in any sense for the purpose of cross-examination by the prosecution and should never be used for that purpose. If in a particular case the hon. Member finds that such reports are used for such a purpose, I hope that he will invite the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to it. The hon. Member and I would easily agree that there should not be any such cross-examination. The hon. Member is inviting us to bring this practice to an end altogether. I must give him a clearly emphatic answer in the negative that we are not prepared to do that.

Mr. Abse: I have not asked that. I have been endeavouring by everything I have said to point out that when the prosecution knows from the defence that a man charged with murder has a defence which will be put forward touching upon his mental condition,


quite clearly, as has been laid down in the past, there should be every opportunity to the prosecution and to the Prison Commissioners to investigate the man's mental condition so that evidence is available before the court either to rebut the defence case or, if necessary, to confirm it.
But it is quite contrary to all justice that when the defence does not intend to bring the mental health of the man into issue the prosecution should take it upon itself to investigate the man's mental condition. What has happened is that it has come about by routine methods, as the Under-Secretary has said, by mechanical application of procedures without taking into account

what was originally directed by the Home Secretary and without taking into account the full effect of the new Homicide Act, with its embodiment of the law concerning provocation and the "reasonable man". These directives and changes have been ignored and the matter needs to be looked at afresh.
I am not saying that in all cases there should not be a psychiatric inquiry by the Prison Commissioner. I am saying that in cases which do not involve any issue by the defence of mental health, there is no right to investigate the man's condition in this way.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Ten o'clock.